###

American scientists and their international counterparts are grappling with significant disruptions due to unstable funding and immigration policies, causing uncertainty throughout the scientific community. Dr. Patapoutian, a notable figure in the field, emphasizes how this turmoil affects the entire system, as funds for grants are frozen or reduced, making it challenging to maintain existing teams or hire new talent. His lab, comprising nearly 50% international graduate students and postdocs, faces diminished interest from abroad. Like many others, he refrains from new hires, bracing for financial volatility.

Historically, America has been a beacon for global scientific talent. In the early 20th century, American pioneers studied at European universities, and following World War II, the U.S. became a sanctuary for brilliant minds fleeing fascism. Dr. McNutt underscores that the introduction of European experts post-WWII spurred America's advancements, such as the moon landing. However, for budding scientists and postdocs, opportunities outside the U.S. now seem more promising due to the offer of greater stability and resources.

At Johns Hopkins University, Richard Huganir, head of neuroscience, voices deep concerns over potential restrictions on enrolling international students. At his institution, approximately 30% of the 100 graduate students and postdocs are from abroad. Huganir fears a 30% reduction in workforce would devastate American science, citing the migration of talent back to countries like China and Korea.

Huganir's apprehensions extend beyond the loss of talent; the isolation of American science is becoming more pronounced. He even had to cancel an international conference at Hopkins due to the reluctance of foreign scientists to visit the United States, and the fear among international students of being unable to return if they left.

Dr. Unberath, a computer-assisted medicine expert at Hopkins from Germany, shares a similar plight. With a predominantly international team, he sees top talents now opting for European opportunities. His own experience reflects the broader trend—students and researchers once keen to secure positions in the U.S. are deterred by visa uncertainties and funding cuts.

Daphne Koller, a notable computer scientist and entrepreneur, recounts her journey from Israel to Stanford and then to founding successful companies largely staffed by foreign-born graduates. She emphasizes the importance of maintaining the U.S. as a magnet for global talent, lamenting current challenges that stifle this influx.

Harvard feels the brunt of these changes painfully, as exemplified by Rudolf Pisa's experience. He lost a vital N.I.H. grant amidst growing skepticism towards academic funding. Originally from the Czech Republic, Dr. Pisa contributed significantly to biomedicine, aiding in developing cancer treatments. However, he now considers relocating to Europe due to the unstable climate.

Dr. Tom Rapoport, leading a cell biology lab at Harvard, faces similar woes. He highlights a personal history of political turbulence, drawing parallels between past and present scientific challenges. His lab's reliance on federal grants is jeopardized, threatening to halve his team. Rapoport warns that undermining the scientific framework risks the country's lead in global medical advancements.

In summation, top scientists like Kate Zernike raise an alarm about how prolonged funding cuts and restrictive immigration policies could permanently damage America's standing in global science. This loss, they argue, could have far-reaching consequences for scientific progress worldwide.