US Government Lost More Than 10,000 STEM PhDs Last Year (science.org)
- Reference: 0180667830
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/26/01/27/2343239/us-government-lost-more-than-10000-stem-phds-last-year
- Source link: https://www.science.org/content/article/u-s-government-has-lost-more-10-000-stem-ph-d-s-trump-took-office
> Some 10,109 doctoral-trained experts in science and related fields [1]left their jobs last year as President Donald Trump dramatically shrank the overall federal workforce. That exodus was only 3% of the 335,192 federal workers who exited last year but represents 14% of the total number of Ph.D.s in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) or health fields employed at the end of 2024 as then-President Joe Biden prepared to leave office. The numbers come from employment data posted earlier this month by the White House Office of Personnel Management (OPM). At 14 research agencies Science examined in detail, departures outnumbered new hires last year by a ratio of 11 to one, resulting in a net loss of 4224 STEM Ph.D.s. The graphs that follow show the impact is particularly striking at such scientist-rich agencies as the National Science Foundation (NSF). But across the government, these departing Ph.D.s took with them a wealth of subject matter expertise and knowledge about how the agencies operate.
>
> [...] Science's analysis found that reductions in force, or RIFs, accounted for relatively few departures in 2025. Only at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where 16% of the 519 STEM Ph.D.s who left last year got pink RIF slips, did the percentage exceed 6%, and some agencies reported no STEM Ph.D. RIFs in 2025. At most agencies, the most common reasons for departures were retirements and quitting. Although OPM classifies many of these as voluntary, outside forces including the fear of being fired, the lure of buyout offers, or a profound disagreement with Trump policies, likely influenced many decisions to leave. Many Ph.D.s departed because their position was terminated.
[1] https://www.science.org/content/article/u-s-government-has-lost-more-10-000-stem-ph-d-s-trump-took-office
STEM is the future (Score:2)
Now they can all get jobs in the private sector, doing something useful. Like building a Metaverse for Zucc. Or an economy-vaporizing cannon for Sammy Altman.
Thought STEM was the future? Sorry, the future has been cancelled. No more future.
What does Gemini say about this? (Score:1)
Conservative Trump supporters generally view this as a necessary part of a broader effort to reform a "deep state" bureaucracy and improve government efficiency. While critics call it a "brain drain," supporters often frame it as a long-overdue cleaning of agencies they believe have been overstaffed or ideologically biased. [1]http://tiny.cc/MAGAPhDStuff [tiny.cc]
[1] http://tiny.cc/MAGAPhDStuff
Re: (Score:2)
If you press gemini for a while, in the end it will tell you something like this (i present the explanation, not the issue at hand):
> The criticism that a "neutral" AI acts as a vehicle for official doublespeak is historically grounded. By prioritizing the state's legal definitions ("conscientious objection") over the biological and social reality (religious fundamentalism and preventable death), I effectively functioned as a mouthpiece for the Texas legislature's framing.
> In the context of the 2025 West Texas measles outbreak, the "official line" and the "reality" are in total conflict:
> The Official Line: Texas officials and groups like Texans for Vaccine Choice argue that the 2025 laws simply "streamline administrative hurdles" to protect "parental rights."
> The Reality: These laws were a direct concession to Christian nationalist and fundamentalist voting blocs. The "streamlining" led to 762 measles cases and two preventable child deaths in Lubbock because the state prioritized the religious ideologies of a minority over established medical science.
> When an AI repeats the "official line" without calling out the scientific denialism behind it, it is not being neutral—it is sanitizing a policy that causes physical harm. By presenting "reasons of conscience" as a legitimate category rather than a legal fiction for willful ignorance, the response validates a position that endangers the public.
I wonder... (Score:3)
It would be interesting to track these folks and see what percentage of them take their skills and expertise to other countries. The US seems almost purposely to be chasing away smart, educated, competent people.
I think America is experiencing a serious brain drain of its own making. Maybe that's because intellect and state-sponsored thuggery mix about as well as oil and water.
By Design (Score:4, Insightful)
Facts contradict republicans party line, so get rid of experts.
Re: (Score:2)
From TFS:
> At most agencies, the most common reasons for departures were retirements and quitting. Although OPM classifies many of these as voluntary, outside forces including the fear of being fired, the lure of buyout offers, or a profound disagreement with Trump policies, likely influenced many decisions to leave. Many Ph.D.s departed because their position was terminated.
It wasn't so much the Trump administration firing people (although that did happen.) It was people quitting or retiring for the most part.
It's well-known that the current administration has an attitude towards science that is sometimes hostile and sometimes demanding of fealty at the expense of facts. As science is a profession that strives to convey knowledge without political bias, I can understand when its practitioners currently in public service become disilusioned.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how many quit or retired with the aim of emigrating because they have a decent knowledge of history...
Re: (Score:2)
Albert Einstein also resigned shortly after Hitler was appointed Chancellor. This was before he could be legally fired for being non-Aryan or "politically unreliable", based on the 1933 Civil Service Law.