Global science bodies pivot to capitalize on US brain drain

As US federal funding cuts and layoffs drive some researchers out of the nation, institutions in other countries are pivoting to position themselves as a refuge for top scientific talent. But while some research institutions see opportunities to advance their own agendas, others caution that there is a delicate balance to strike between showing solidarity and exploiting struggling colleagues.

Several European science bodies, including the Max Planck Society for the Advancement of Science, the Karolinska Institute, and the Free University of Brussels, have said they are exploring options for bringing in scientists from overseas. In France, Aix-Marseille University in February announced a Safe Place for Science program, which will invest between $10 million and $16 million to support about 15 researchers. And the European Commission is considering the creation of a special passport for scientists that would make it easier to study and work on the continent, Ekaterina Zaharieva, the commissioner responsible for research and innovation, told a Feb. 19 meeting of members of the European Parliament.

“It’s difficult to understand, in some ways, why the US, which has always been seen as a pillar of the scientific community, is not continuing to invest in the scientific community,” says Zach Stamp, managing director for Europe at recruitment agency EPM Scientific in London. “But if you’re looking at bringing in students or looking to fund research programs, and suddenly there is this wealth of talent that might not previously have considered a relocation, it’s a brilliant opportunity.”

Stamp has seen an uptick in US-based talent applying for positions in industry and academia in Asia and Canada, as well as in Europe. Many of these are researchers who had moved to the US and are now deciding to return home, Stamp says, but he has observed the trend expanding to US nationals. “People in science generally tend to be very, very passionate about what they do. And if funding is restricted, if research grants are restricted in one location, naturally there will be an appetite to go and seek that elsewhere,” he says. “The big science hubs [in Europe] are looking to take most advantage of this: UK, Germany, France, the Nordics.”

Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e) is eager to welcome talent in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields who no longer feel appreciated or supported in their own country. Robert-Jan Smits, who was president of the Dutch university’s executive board until handing over to Koen Janssen on March 27, says TU/e, which is a key player in the global semiconductor industry, is “incentivized by what’s happening in Washington to accelerate our ambitions in the field of semicon and as such to increase our contribution and commitment to the European agenda of technological sovereignty.”

University of Oslo rector Svein Stølen says offering a harbor to scientists in climate and energy research in particular would be “wise.” But he cautions that Europe is hampered by its own budget cuts for research, which are in part due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the reallocation of European Union (EU) funds to defense. The University of Oslo’s own budget has declined 7% since 2019, he says.

“In this situation, it is demanding to find resources needed to secure positions for scientists from US institutions—even though this is a theme both in Norway and the Nordic countries. We really need to see financial schemes that could help; Norwegian, Nordic, or European schemes,” Stølen says.

In a letter to Zaharieva on March 20, science ministers from 13 European countries called for “immediate action,” including dedicated funding and an immigration framework, to make the continent more accessible to international researchers. French research minister Philippe Baptiste, one of the signees, has been particularly vocal in calling on the EU to organize a funding plan. “Europe must be there to protect research and welcome the talent that can contribute to its success,” he wrote on social media platform X in March.

While Europe’s research budgets have declined in recent years, its pockets aren’t empty. Its flagship research-funding vehicle Horizon Europe has $100 billion to spend for the 2021–27 period. The European Research Council (ERC), whose budget falls under Horizon, plans to double the funding available for grantees relocating to Europe. Researchers from the US will be able to gain individual grants of up to $4.8 million, as well as synergy grants for international collaboration projects in which one principal investigator is based outside of Europe, ERC president Maria Leptin confirms.

Leptin says Europe can become a “haven” for researchers but stresses that this must not mean European institutions benefit from their colleagues’ misery. “It is a delicate balance when welcoming US-based researchers without exploiting their current challenges,” she tells C&EN. “Our aim is unchanged: to offer genuine opportunities for creative researchers, maintaining Europe’s tradition of openness and support for independent, investigator-driven research, regardless of the nationality or the current location of grant applicants.”

China better equipped to hire than Europe

Financially, China seems better equipped than Europe to hire scientists from the US says Kai Pflug, CEO of Shanghai-based consultancy Management Consulting–Chemicals: “China thinks very highly of STEM scientists and has the money and projects to employ and use them.” But he says China’s recruitment drive will be restricted to areas of chemical research that are already established as the Chinese government’s focus, such as batteries, solar power, and semiconductors.

Reports of a Chinese recruitment drive ruffled feathers in the US government in February. Three representatives, including Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), ranking member of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, warned in a letter to commerce secretary Howard Lutnick that mass layoffs at the National Institute of Standards and Technology “jeopardize our ability to compete with the People’s Republic of China.”

In Canada, research institutions have been less vocal on recruitment, and several universities contacted by C&EN declined to comment. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) says it needs to better understand the impact US funding cuts will have on Canadian research before it can take any action in response.

“We’re aware of this situation at the [US National Institutes of Health], and we’re monitoring it closely,” a CIHR spokesperson tells C&EN in an email. The CIHR has commissioned research into how US funding changes relate to Canadian research, and it has joined a dedicated working group of Canada’s research-funding agencies—including the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada—to examine the situation, the spokesperson says.

Stark contrast with Europe

This patient approach is in stark contrast to that of Europe, where an urgency to counteract the global knock-on effect of the situation in the US runs high. The director of the Paris-based Pasteur Institute, Yasmine Belkaid, says decisions taken by the second administration of Donald J. Trump “will have a direct impact on the study of infectious diseases, vaccinology, genetic diversity, women’s health, and so on.”

The Pasteur Institute has been receiving testimonials from “distraught” scientists at US research institutes and universities “for several weeks now,” says Belkaid, who once worked as an immunology researcher in the US. Governments, she says, must fund ambitious schemes to welcome scientists leaving the US, particularly those working in the life sciences, “thereby supporting those who, by defending science, are protecting our societies.”

Matthias Johannsen, director of the European Federation of Academies of Sciences and Humanities (ALLEA), says science bodies everywhere have an interest in supporting US researchers in order to protect international collaboration and research reliant on US-driven databases. “First of all, it’s outrageous what’s happening, and I think the whole scientific community globally would agree on that,” he says. “It might be that individual research organizations can benefit here and there because they can now attract a top researcher, but these are individual cases. In general, this is threatening the whole research collaboration framework globally.”

An ALLEA statement condemning threats to academic freedom and international research collaboration in the US gathered signatures from 105 scientific institutions in February. Johannsen hopes to use the momentum to lobby for better political mechanisms that will protect institutional autonomy in the US, the EU, and other regions in the future. Presently, ALLEA is leaning on Brussels to draw up a legislative proposal that would legally cement academic freedom in research and protect it from government interference.

For Johannsen, how the international science community reacts now will define its role in counteracting future threats to research. “These things do not only happen in the US. Look at Hungary, look at Serbia, look at other countries. With populist parties entering governments, we probably will be facing similar challenges on this continent too. The question is, What can we do as academies, as a science community, to become better prepared?”