TL;DR
Turn your wind-down time into listening time
- Thousands of audiobooks, podcasts and originals
- Listen on your phone, tablet or Echo — also offline
- Cancel anytime
Researchers from U.S. universities and federal agencies have moved to Finland, the U.K. and Australia amid delayed or uncertain federal funding and concerns about research conditions, according to a MedPage Today report. The scale of the movement is not known, but professional groups and researchers cite signs of increased departures and say the effects on U.S. science and its reputation could continue.
Researchers from U.S. universities and a federal agency have moved to positions in Finland, the United Kingdom and Australia, citing delayed grants, uncertainty over future funding and concerns about research conditions, according to a MedPage Today report published Oct. 19, 2026. The number of scientists leaving nationally is unknown, but researchers and professional groups say overseas recruitment is drawing talent away from U.S. institutions.
Halley Froehlich, a marine scientist who studied how climate change affects seafood species at the University of California, Santa Barbara, moved with her family to Finland and joined the University of Helsinki. She was recruited through an initiative from the Research Council of Finland and has five years of guaranteed funding worth about $3 million, the report said. Froehlich said delayed or canceled grants among colleagues, alongside uncertainty about funding for her own climate-related work, contributed to her decision.
Other researchers described different reasons for leaving. Christine Stawitz left the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for a research software engineering position at the University of Birmingham in England. She told MedPage Today that she was asked to remove references to climate change and diversity, equity and inclusion from websites. Biologists James Letts and Maria Maldonado left the University of California, Davis, for Monash University in Australia after grant uncertainty contributed to the loss of a staff scientist while they waited for funding.
The report also points to signs of broader movement, while cautioning that a national count is unavailable. An April report from the Business for Federal Research Funding Coalition said more than half of U.S. states had lost scientists to recruitment programs abroad. The American Institute of Physics reported that U.S. physics PhD graduates in 2025 left the country at the highest rate in 30 years. These figures describe different groups and do not establish the total number of researchers who have departed.
The Stakes for U.S. Research
Research careers depend on stable grants, trained staff and long-term institutional support. When funding is delayed, laboratories may be unable to retain employees or plan projects, as Letts and Maldonado described. Researchers who move may also take expertise, collaboration networks and future discoveries to institutions overseas. The report does not quantify those effects, but it documents specific departures and concerns from people working in science.
The shift could affect the United States’ standing as a destination for international researchers. MedPage Today cited a figure that immigrants won 40% of U.S. science Nobel Prizes, underscoring the role of international talent in American research. The country still has well-resourced institutions and many scientists remain, but interviewees said damage to its reputation may be difficult to measure and could influence where future researchers choose to work.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Recruitment Amid Grant Disruption
MedPage Today reported that foreign universities and research bodies began promoting recruitment programs as the Trump administration changed federal grant processes and sought greater political influence over which projects receive funding. Countries mentioned in the report include Canada, France, Belgium and Finland. The recruitment effort offers some researchers an alternative where they see more predictable funding or greater academic freedom.
Researchers’ accounts are not the only evidence cited. In March, early-career biomedical scientists were about 20 percentage points less likely to say they would now stay in the United States than they recalled being six months earlier, according to the report. That is a change in stated intention, not a count of people who actually left. The report also notes that the United States remains a major research center, and that overseas institutions cannot accommodate every scientist who might consider moving.
“You can almost talk to any vice president for research at a university and they will tell you of one or two top faculty that they’ve lost.”
— Tobin Smith, senior vice president of government relations and public policy at the Association of American Universities
How Many Scientists Have Left?
The overall number of U.S.-based researchers who have moved abroad because of funding cuts or other changes is not established. The article cites state-level recruitment reports, a survey of early-career biomedical researchers’ intentions and data on physics PhD graduates; those measures cover different populations and cannot be combined into a single national count. It is also unclear how many departures would have occurred regardless of federal policy.
The source material does not give a complete accounting of federal grant reductions, freezes or delays, nor does it establish the long-term effect on research output. The White House disputed the framing of the funding changes, saying they are intended to end waste and support scientific leadership. The extent to which overseas recruitment will continue, and whether U.S. institutions can retain or later regain researchers, remains uncertain.
Funding and Recruitment Ahead
The researchers profiled are continuing their work abroad, including Froehlich’s five-year Finland appointment. The next indicators to watch are whether overseas universities keep expanding recruitment, whether U.S. grant programs become more predictable, and whether universities report further faculty or staff departures. The report does not identify a scheduled policy decision or a date for a comprehensive national tally.
For now, the evidence consists of individual moves and separate sector indicators rather than a full measure of the trend. Future data on grant awards, laboratory staffing and researcher mobility would help show whether the departures are temporary, concentrated in particular fields, or part of a lasting change in where scientists build their careers.
Key Questions
Why are researchers leaving the United States?
Researchers interviewed by MedPage Today cited grant delays or cancellations, uncertainty about future funding and concerns about research conditions. Their reasons differ, and the report does not claim that every departure was caused by one policy.
Where are the researchers moving?
The people profiled moved to Finland, the United Kingdom and Australia. The report also names Canada, France and Belgium among countries promoting recruitment of U.S.-based scientists.
How many scientists have left?
No national total is available in the report. It cites an April coalition report covering losses in more than half of U.S. states and separate data on physics PhD graduates, but these do not establish how many researchers left because of funding changes.
Is the United States still attracting scientists?
Yes. The report says U.S. institutions continue to have strong research communities and resources, and many scientists are staying, seeking other funding or moving into industry. It also reports concerns that the country’s reputation as a research destination may be weakening.
Source: rss
Halloween Picks
halloween
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
