Trump cuts put US biomedical world at risk

Take Kendall Square in Cambridge — arguably the densest cluster of biomedical brainpower on the planet. This didn’t happen by chance. It’s the result of brilliant scientists — both local and international — coming here, training here, and staying here. They’ve pushed one another to go further, think bigger, and move faster. That density of talent and resources has been a game changer, leading to companies like Moderna, which developed one of the first mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and is now pioneering personalized cancer treatments, and Biogen, which created the first approved treatment for spinal muscular atrophy.

American biotech prowess goes beyond Kendall Square, of course. From San Diego’s biotech giants to North Carolina’s Research Triangle, this model of bringing in the world’s brightest minds — a strategy of competition and collaboration — has led to hundreds of startups, advanced new drugs and diagnostics, and spurred American leadership in biomanufacturing. These ecosystems fuel jobs and growth. For example, North Carolina’s life sciences industry employs more than 75,000 individuals and generates $88 billion annually. One report showed that every dollar of National Institutes of Health research funding more than doubles in economic returns, highlighting a significant return on investment.

But that model is fragile. The Trump administration’s sweeping cuts to NIH research funding, as high as $2.7 billion through March, along with mass layoffs, budget cuts, and threats to universities, are creating job instability and lost opportunities for scientists. Many are now looking elsewhere. A recent Nature survey found that three-quarters of US-based researchers and graduate students are considering working abroad.

At the same time, it may become harder for international scientists to come here and collaborate with US scientists, which fosters the competitive environment that has long made America a global leader in science. The H-1B visa — a key pathway for high-skilled workers — is likely to face increased scrutiny, with recent Trump administration requests drawing greater attention to the program. Heightened screening, unpredictability, and delays may discourage many talented researchers from even applying.

Some may think our scientific edge is rooted too deeply to be concerned about losing talent, but history tells otherwise. Argentina’s golden age of science in the 1950s and 1960s — marked by strong government support, Nobel Prize awards, and major breakthroughs in quantum physics — was ended abruptly by political turmoil. Academic censorship took hold, mass layoffs of scientists ensued, funding vanished, and a brain drain followed. Argentina tried but never regained that peak and is a warning that even the most robust scientific leadership can erode quickly and be hard to get back.

It’s why Europe, Canada, and China are laying out the red carpet to attract scientists disillusioned by America’s shifting policies. In Europe, leaders publicly urged the European Union to welcome top global researchers facing funding cuts, and the European Research Council doubled relocation grants to as much as $2.2 million per scientist.

As top scientists go elsewhere, so will their breakthroughs. The critical mass of talent that powers American biomedical science will scatter. So will the next generation of treatments, cures, technologies, jobs, and economic momentum that comes as a result of having this critical mass. Progress will happen elsewhere. But it will happen more slowly because no one place will have the critical mass needed to drive innovations forward at the same pace.

And this impending brain drain will have a real impact on American lives. When discoveries happen in the United States, we are among the first to access new treatments. If biomedical leadership slips, we risk a future where the most advanced treatments are discovered elsewhere and we’re stuck waiting in line to get access to them.

In the best-case scenario, Europe or Canada will fill the vacuum. But the far more likely scenario is that China will become the undisputed leader in biomedical science. China has been pouring tens of billions of dollars into its biomedical enterprise, just as the United States is cutting back. And Chinese science has become quite good. But much of its scientific enterprise is powered by the government, which plays by a very different set of rules than the United States does. From state control of data to limits on academic freedom and weak protections for intellectual property, China’s scientific model prioritizes centralized authority over open inquiry. If the cutting edge of biomedicine shifts there, so will the power to decide who gets treated, how science is used, and which ethical lines are observed — and which are discarded.

Still, that’s assuming someone can recreate what we’ve built in the United States, which is no small feat, even for China. The American ideals of freedom and fairness have led to an ecosystem of public investment, private capital, world-class universities, and global talent that is unique and a potent recipe for success. That’s why losing this ecosystem wouldn’t just be a setback for the United States — it would be a loss for global science, slowing progress for everyone.

One of my favorite reflections of what makes the current ecosystem so effective comes from Wolfgang Ketterle, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist at MIT. Despite offers from the top institutions in his native Germany, he’s repeatedly chosen to stay put. Why? Because his students come from every corner of the globe, and that intellectual diversity, he told the German newspaper Suddeutsche Zeitung in 2001, makes the science better: “The different viewpoints enable entirely new ways of thinking.”

Keeping that a reality in the United States will require action. Many are hoping this moment will pass, but hope is not a strategy. The next 20 years will be defined by advances in biotechnology. The most transformative innovations in medicine, health, biomanufacturing, and national security could still come from the United States if we choose to not squander our advantages. That means renewing our investment in science and defending the ecosystem that makes discovery possible: competitive, dynamic, and inviting to the best minds, wherever they’re from.