upvote
Emigrate where? And why do you assume that the country you're gonna emigrate to will have the funds necessay to fund the research? US grants are the biggest and most generous in the world. I think the USG spends over $900 Billion every year. Europe spends about 1/10th of that. Other option is China but as a foreigner, you will never get a grant there unless you work for someone else.
reply
> I think the USG spends over $900 Billion every year. Europe spends about 1/10th of that

Do you mean that the EU spends 1/10th that, rather than Europe? Because France, Germany and the UK all spend €100-150bn each in grants depending on how you set your definition, and that’s atop the EU’s grant money.

Just eyeballing the figures across different countries, it looks like the USG distributes approximately the same amount in grants per capita as the EU & UK. Certainly not a 90% diff.

reply
On a gdp basis, which heavily favours the US, the US is not even the top dog. It's just above Belgium and below South Korea.
reply
Absolute values would favor the US, not a percent of gdp.
reply
You're comparing the sum of those European countries to the US.

Scientists have two easy avenues if they are currently in the US, the US or their home country. Immigration to work in a foreign nation is not always easy and takes time.

reply
> Emigrate where? And why do you assume that the country you're gonna emigrate to will have the funds necessay to fund the research?

If the choice is between $0 in the US and >$0 someplace else, you emigrate to >$0 if you want to continue your research.

reply
I know scientists who want to move back home but can't because where they are from doesn't have funding for the research they do. Even with the uncertain federal funding it's still more viable than many places around the world.
reply
I wonder where you suggest researchers go that is both granting funding and not attaching similar or more stringent strings to the money?
reply
Any country that doesn't openly say that it will bar funding to grant applications that include any word from a given list of words. Which, of the countries on this planet, is quite a few.
reply
Well, for most "someplace else", the choice is =$0 too.
reply
You don't think the rest of the world is doing funded research?
reply
Interestingly, if the US stopped spending you’d need the top 17 remaining countries to double their spending to absorb the American science industry. Doubling is a tall order and seventeen is a large number. Most likely fewer scientists will find employment in government funded academia if this came to be.
reply
Europe is the obvious answer. As others have posted, your numbers here are way off. And on the flip side, there's now some major programs actively encouraging this with special grants, support, relocation bonuses: e.g. ATRAE in Spain, EURAXESS, "Choose Europe For Science", Max Planck Transatlantic Programme.
reply
>I think the USG spends over $900 Billion every year. Europe spends about 1/10th of that

Way off, it's way closer, even if we're just talking EU. EU (the body) alone is about 200 billion/year. EU member states are like 1-1.5 trillion/year.

reply
1/10th?

US: $848B (2024)

EU: $508B (2024)

---

UK: $102B (2023)

Switzerland: $22B (2023)

Norway: $8.2B (2024)

OECD "Gross domestic spending on R&D"

reply
"R&D" is not the same as "grants supporting fundamental science."
reply
That number is for the United States, not the United States government
reply
Europe.

We fund science, research and we have accelerated programs for researchers affected by these kinds of things.

If you're interested, email me (see profile). I have been helping Americans emigrate to Europe (for free) for several years.

reply
I think his main point was that the art of continually licking the right asses to keep funding going is not science.
reply
Licking asses to get grants has been the full time job of tenured faculty for decades. Peer review just means they lick each other’s asses.
reply
> USG spends over $900 Billion every year

If you spend $900 Billions on BS you will lose to other countries that only spend 1/100th of that.

Quantity over quality doesn’t work in science because reality doesn’t care who paid how much.

reply
the US used to spend. Now borligarchs decide.
reply
Does the US spend that much anymore? How much are you willing to compromise the integrity of your research to get your slice of what’s left?
reply
[dead]
reply
Hasn’t academia always been that way?
reply
It was better not perfect but there is value even just in keeping up the pretense
reply
Generally, academia has always had a measure of bias to it. However the bias was never so blatant and never so against producing an environment where good research could feasibly be created. The vast majority of research is non political increments of existing non political increments where the main conflicts are personal beefs among flawed individual PIs and maybe being asked what fig leaf one offers to ensure that the funding doesn’t just go to a bunch of white wealthy straight men. Once you have funding you can be set for years to focus on your work, assuming you don’t do something dumb like make sexist or racist remarks, and even then your funding is generally secure you just might not get a new round 3 years later(probably will though because controversies die pretty fast).

I know a lot of hay and media exists about how academia is yadda yadda biased and anti intellectual. But of course a lot of that is cherry picked examples of controversial figures or individual missteps among individual institutions. This is a bit like taking a classroom with one rowdy asshole and then declaring the whole school must use physical violence as discipline from now on.

reply
My point wasn’t bias but butt kissing. There is always butt kissing, and academia has some of the worst petty politics.
reply
deleted
reply
deleted
reply
Yes but in ways whose solutions admit some level of creativity or ingenuity
reply
deleted
reply
Boots. Licking boots.
reply
These boots are made for walking!
reply
[dead]
reply
There is a lot of private funding available with a broad range of targets and boundaries.
reply
If we aren't funding progress with our tax dollars then what are we even doing?
reply
Getting the government together is absolutely something we should do. If you are serious about science and technology then there are funds available and moving to Europe is not necessarily the only strategy. Do you really think that scientists who move to Europe to practice will be the people who turn America back around?
reply
I don't think China needs the kind of scientists disproportionately affected by the bad orange man's vendetta.
reply
The chaos is affecting pretty much all areas of science, not just the controversial ones. I work in non-controversial, pretty run-of-the-mill chemistry research and the attacks on the NSF have certainly impacted our funding situation. Very long delays in proposal review, complete pivoting to AI, etc. I have co-workers panicking over the green card changes. And the overall morale is pretty grim everywhere.

Edit: don’t forget how he’s forcing NSF headquarters to move. All the NSF, not just the “bad” research.

Almost everyone has entertained the idea of leaving the US for more stability, which is required for research.

reply
I work for an org that makes research software for chemistry and other branches of science and it's definitely hit us in sales. No one wants to spend money if they don't know if they're going to get or keep the grants they petitioned for.
reply
Oh I’m sure we could commiserate about that. I think we work in vaguely the same area.

Unfortunately, getting money from industry isn’t much easier in my opinion.

We have some software projects we want to spin out into a small business or non-profit (because federal funding…), but industry is absolutely cold right now. Had a few very promising partners lined up, but it all evaporated last spring. Between tariffs, AI spending, and now oil, everyone is reluctant to spend.

reply
You're writing a response to a racist who supports Donald out of racism, even despite the innumerable policy failures.
reply
Well if they want to stop all improvements to their electric car industry that is letting them out compete European, Japanese and US manufacturers, solar panels have clearly not been important to them, and their rocket programs don’t need anyone working on transfer orbits and god forbid anyone describes the materials they test as “diverse”…
reply
You mean Vaccine researchers? Or renewable energy researchers?
reply
oh, don't be coy.

https://nsf-gov-resources.nsf.gov/files/NSF-Terminated-Award...

I wouldn't even need to cherry pick.

reply
Some of those titles look so satirical it's difficult to believe they're real:

Culture Change for Inclusion of Indigenous Voices in Biology

Strengthening Inclusion by Change in Building Equity, Diversity and Understanding (SICBEDU) in Integrative Biology

An Equitable, Justice-Focused Ecosystem for Pacific Northwest Secondary CS [Computer Science] Teaching

Great to read these are being defunded.

reply
The first item on the list is 44M for quantum materials. Can you please explain why cancelling it is in the national interest of the US? Other than the fact that Harvard didn't admit Daddy's favorite boy?
reply
https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/show-award/?AWD_ID=1231319&a...

Appears it didn't receive any funds since 2022 after being extended for years (so your "daddy" is Biden) and wouldn't get any more money so was canceled to get it off the books.

If anything this shows the list includes regular grants that were canceled for normal reasons, which further demonstrates the cuts were not of real science.

reply