Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Rock Stars of American Science May Soon Take Their Expertise Abroad. That Should Alarm All Americans.

Opinion

Rock Stars of American Science May Soon Take Their Expertise Abroad. That Should Alarm All Americans.
person in blue shirt writing on white paper
Photo by UX Indonesia on Unsplash

Recently, I attended a West Coast conference on the latest research findings in cosmology and found myself sitting in a faculty dining hall with colleagues from around the country. If it had taken place a few months earlier, our conversation would have been filled with debates on the morning’s presentations, but now everything had changed. Against the backdrop of the Trump administration’s attacks on universities and research funding, the question we struggled with was: “When is it time to leave the U.S. and establish our research programs elsewhere?”

One colleague planned to enroll their children in an international school to learn French in case the family had to leave the country in the next few years. Another, whose home institution has been under particularly fierce attacks by the government, said they would stay and fight to support their students, but only so long as their family remained safe. At the same meeting, I heard from a Canadian researcher whose institution was compiling a list of American scientists now considered vulnerable.


That list is likely long. In a poll this spring of U.S. researchers published in Nature, a whopping 75% of respondents reported considering leaving the country. This was most pronounced among respondents at the graduate and postgraduate levels, whose careers are less established and therefore most at risk of being affected by curtailed job opportunities.

I observe this at meeting after meeting with faculty, postdocs, and graduate students, several of whom are already reaching out to explore positions in other countries. At times, the conversations become so overwhelming that someone will ask for a change of subject, a moment of relief when we can return to the scientific debates that brought us together in the first place.

In ordinary times, these debates tend to center on some of the biggest open questions in physics, like seeking to understand how the universe evolved from the seconds after the Big Bang to the present day. My colleagues include theorists and experimentalists who build models, design experiments, and compile data to disentangle these cosmological mysteries. Some have received prestigious awards in recognition of their scientific contributions. Some have been supported by national fellowships for their promise and potential. These are the rock stars that you don’t want to leave.

Most of us are early and mid-career researchers who had been planning a full tenure at U.S. universities. But it is difficult to imagine what our jobs will look like in just three or five years. The sudden grant suspensions and terminations in recent months, coupled with current delays in assessing submitted proposals and budgetary cuts proposed by the Trump administration, point to a significant risk of a long-term research crisis. Labs may have to shut down. Graduate programs may wither in scope and ambition. Research scientists may lose their jobs. I saw a senior professor break down in tears, talking about a colleague who may have to fire his entire research group due to grant terminations. Another wondered aloud if all he will do in the future is read about the scientific discoveries being made elsewhere.

While it is too soon to see how this will play out in practice, it is undeniable that exodus is on the mind of U.S. researchers and that other countries are taking notice. The European Union has recently announced a € 500 million initiative to recruit American scientists. Individual countries, such as Australia, France, and the Netherlands, have started their own dedicated recruitment programs. The potential loss to our country is staggering, considering our preeminent role to date as a scientific leader. In my own field of physics, Americans have comprised over 40% of all Nobel prizes awarded between 1901-2024, far above that of any other country. All of this is now at risk, and the damage may be irreparable for generations.

To avoid this imminent crisis, Congress must reject the proposed cuts to science funding and continue investing in long-term research across scientific fields. Without such action, the country’s scientific engine will be significantly compromised, forcing us to rely on temporary fixes to keep it running. In this emergency state, support for junior researchers must be prioritized. Private foundations and industry sources can make a significant impact by providing stopgap awards that support graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, and junior faculty during this turbulent time. While it is not viable for such support to permanently replace the gap left behind by the federal government, it would help keep science talent in the country for the immediate future, stemming an exodus.

I sit here contemplating this unknown future from my office at Princeton University, in a building where many hallways have a portrait of Albert Einstein. Einstein moved to Princeton in 1933 to escape Nazi Germany and found respite to continue his groundbreaking work on gravitational physics in this quiet town. Shortly after his arrival, he was quoted in an undergraduate publication advising students to “Never regard your study as a duty, but as the enviable opportunity to learn to know the liberating influence of beauty in the realm of the spirit for your own personal joy and to the profit of the community to which your later work belongs.” This sentiment reminds us of the humility that accompanies any scientific pursuit and a scientist’s commitment to the betterment of our world. As a country, we have for decades strongly supported and rightfully reaped the benefits of this dedication. But now, nearly a century after Einstein’s arrival, we must ask ourselves how we envision our future.

For now, I am committed to staying, motivated by a desire to support the younger generation currently in training. To me, fighting for the future of science in this country means doing my day-to-day job to the best of my ability, despite the strong headwinds. It is an attempt to save what is possible, so that junior researchers who leave the country now may have something to return to in the future.

I simply cannot shake the hope that the time will come again when Einstein’s words resonate, and my colleagues and I can gather around the lunch table and return to discussing the science that excites us most.

Mariangela Lisanti is a professor of physics at Princeton University, a research scientist at the Flatiron Institute, and a Public Voices Fellow with the OpEd Project. Her views as expressed here are not necessarily those of any employer or other institution.



Read More

People wearing vests with "ICE" and "Police" on the back.

The latest shutdown deal kept government open while exposing Congress’s reliance on procedural oversight rather than structural limits on ICE.

Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

A Shutdown Averted, and a Narrow Window Into Congress’s ICE Dilemma

Congress’s latest shutdown scare ended the way these episodes usually do: with a stopgap deal, a sigh of relief, and little sense that the underlying conflict had been resolved. But buried inside the agreement was a revealing maneuver. While most of the federal government received longer-term funding, the Department of Homeland Security, and especially Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), was given only a short-term extension. That asymmetry was deliberate. It preserved leverage over one of the most controversial federal agencies without triggering a prolonged shutdown, while also exposing the narrow terrain on which Congress is still willing to confront executive power. As with so many recent budget deals, the decision emerged less from open debate than from late-stage negotiations compressed into the final hours before the deadline.

How the Deal Was Framed

Democrats used the funding deadline to force a conversation about ICE’s enforcement practices, but they were careful about how that conversation was structured. Rather than reopening the far more combustible debate over immigration levels, deportation priorities, or statutory authority, they framed the dispute as one about law-enforcement standards, specifically transparency, accountability, and oversight.

Keep ReadingShow less
Pier C Park waterfront walkway and in the background the One World Trade Center on the left and the Erie-Lackawanna Railroad and Ferry Terminal Clock Tower on the right

View of the Pier C Park waterfront walkway and in the background the One World Trade Center on the left and the Erie-Lackawanna Railroad and Ferry Terminal Clock Tower on the right

Getty Images, Philippe Debled

The City Where Traffic Fatalities Vanished

A U.S. city of 60,000 people would typically see around six to eight traffic fatalities every year. But Hoboken, New Jersey? They haven’t had a single fatal crash for nine years — since January 17, 2017, to be exact.

Campaigns for seatbelts, lower speed limits and sober driving have brought national death tolls from car crashes down from a peak in the first half of the 20th century. However, many still assume some traffic deaths as an unavoidable cost of car culture.

Keep ReadingShow less
Congress Has Forgotten Its Oath — and the Nation Is Paying the Price

US Capitol

Congress Has Forgotten Its Oath — and the Nation Is Paying the Price

What has happened to the U.S. Congress? Once the anchor of American democracy, it now delivers chaos and a record of inaction that leaves millions of Americans vulnerable. A branch designed to defend the Constitution has instead drifted into paralysis — and the nation is paying the price. It must break its silence and reassert its constitutional role.

The Constitution created three coequal branches — legislative, executive, and judicial — each designed to balance and restrain the others. The Framers placed Congress first in Article I (U.S. Constitution) because they believed the people’s representatives should hold the greatest responsibility: to write laws, control spending, conduct oversight, and ensure that no president or agency escapes accountability. Congress was meant to be the branch closest to the people — the one that listens, deliberates, and acts on behalf of the nation.

Keep ReadingShow less
WI professor: Dems face breaking point over DHS funding feud

Republicans will need some Democratic support to pass the multi-bill spending package in time to avoid a partial government shutdown.

(Adobe Stock)

WI professor: Dems face breaking point over DHS funding feud

A Wisconsin professor is calling another potential government shutdown the ultimate test for the Democratic Party.

Congress is currently in contentious negotiations over a House-approved bill containing additional funding for the Department of Homeland Security, including billions for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as national political uproar continues after immigration agents shot and killed Alex Pretti, 37, in Minneapolis during protests over the weekend.

Keep ReadingShow less