News: 0185235196

  ARM Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life (Terry Pratchett, Jingo)

Canada Hires 48 Scholars Away From Top US Universities (nytimes.com)

(Friday August 28, 2026 @03:00AM (BeauHD) from the brain-drain dept.)


Canada is [1]recruiting 64 researchers to universities across the country (source paywalled; [2]alternative source ), including 48 from U.S. institutions such as Harvard, Yale, and MIT. The hires are backed by more than $364 million in government funding and are part of a broader effort to attract researchers in fields such as AI, climate science, and medicine. The New York Times reports:

> While scientists often shy away from political discourse, some are saying the Trump administration's assault on science is behind their departure. "I used to live in the country that I thought was the most enthusiastic about the prospects for science improving the human condition, of any country in the world," said Phillip Zamore, the chair of RNA Therapeutics Institute at the University of Massachusetts. "And I woke up one day and that wasn't true anymore." He has been recruited to McGill University in Montreal, which has also hired five other researchers, and will join the medical faculty. "If scientists don't stand up for truth, no one will," Dr. Zamore said.

>

> The Canada-bound brain drain from U.S. institutions began last year as the Trump administration put forward policies that targeted foreign students, academic freedom and funding for equity-related programs. Kevin Hall, a nutrition scientist who left the U.S. National Institutes of Health last year, accusing federal officials of censoring his research on ultraprocessed foods, has been hired at the University of Ottawa. "While certain countries are cutting research and turning their back on academic freedom, we're doubling down on science," Melanie Joly, Canada's industry minister, told reporters at the announcement, in Vancouver, of the new university hiring. She billed it as the world's "largest talent attraction" project. The European Union has made a similar push. "Years from now, we will look back at today's announcement, and we will be able to seize the lasting impact of our choices," Ms. Joly said.

>

> Unpredictable decisions about funding prompted Seth Guikema, a professor in civil and environmental engineering, who has specialized in natural hazards modeling at the University of Michigan, to look elsewhere. His work focuses on how climate hazards inequitably affect communities, and that work has become harder to fund, he said. "Every country sets its priorities in terms of what is going to get funded, and I think Canada has done a very good job of supporting research in areas that really matter to society," said Dr. Guikema, who will start at Western University in London, Ontario in January.



[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/27/world/canada/canada-universities-hire-us-researchers.html

[2] https://vancouver.citynews.ca/2026/08/27/canada-recruits-dozens-of-foreign-scientists-researchers-poaching-many-from-u-s/



The long-term impact of this on the US (Score:4, Insightful)

by Arrogant-Bastard ( 141720 )

This has ripple effects, because some of their students will go with them -- and when they do, that means some of the next generation -- the people will reach mid-career between 2050 and 2060 -- will be gone. Canada is of course not the only country doing this; the entire EU, the UK, Australia, NZ, Japan, and others are doing the same thing because they see a golden opportunity right in front of them.

The consequences go far beyond academia: basic scientific research is THE engine behind engineering, medicine, and industry. The US has enjoyed amazing economic success since WW II because it recognized that there's no better investment not just in terms of monetary ROI, but societal ROI. And now it's being systematically destroyed by one psychotic senile moron who couldn't even name the planets or tell you the difference between a bacteria and a virus.

This is both maddening and depressing. The US spent 75 years becoming one of the best, if not the best, scientific countries in the world and now, in just a few short years, it's rapidly undoing much of that.

Re: (Score:2)

by SpzToid ( 869795 )

> The US spent 75 years becoming one of the best, if not the best, scientific countries in the world and now, in just a few short years, it's rapidly undoing much of that.

The Trump administration has been an anathema to science for reasons which I fail to comprehend. Can someone explain why this is? Is this just something fascist autocrats do?

Re: (Score:2)

by Rei ( 128717 )

They're certainly trying. I was listening to an exoplanets researcher the other day (in response to [1]"How are scientists adjusting the way they work during the Trump administration?" [theconversation.com]) grumble about how they're afraid to use the phrase "diversity of exoplanets" in their work because of a (well-grounded) fear that having the word "diversity" will get their paper flagged for rejection. This sort of environment is toxic.

(My favourite response was "Spell it 'divers' and throw in the occasional 'thou art' and 'ex

[1] https://theconversation.com/self-censorship-more-stress-tougher-recruiting-we-asked-us-researchers-how-the-trump-administrations-science-policies-have-affected-them-280968

Re: (Score:2)

by Alain Williams ( 2972 )

Because scientists follow the evidence to draw conclusions, they sometimes say things that contradict the ideology. Climate change is a good example of this.

Re: (Score:1)

by jaygull ( 10381371 )

my theory is that the republican party wants the population dumb, because dumb people are easier to lie to. Oh, and because every study anywhere shows that an education typically leads a majority of people away from the republican party.

Re:The long-term impact of this on the US (Score:4, Informative)

by quenda ( 644621 )

> every study anywhere shows that an education typically leads a majority of people away from the republican party.

Interestingly, that is only a recent trend. Until 30 years ago, more educated people tended to vote Republican, and the Democrats were supported by the working class. That has flipped, especially since Obama in 2008. The Republic party has shifted it even further since you-know-who in 2016.

Re: (Score:2)

by NotEmmanuelGoldstein ( 6423622 )

Autocrats dislike disobedience and change, being stereotypical luddites. Science is about changing our understanding of the truth. Thus, autocrats dislike research, which enables that change. More important, autocrats have favourite industries, corporations and leaders. Anything that threatens that favouritism, such as climate change, or automation is the enemy of autocrats. It is paradoxical that the USA is eliminating green technology while approving AI technology. The paradox is evidence that the W

Re: (Score:2)

by serviscope_minor ( 664417 )

Thus, autocrats dislike research, which enables that change.

Yes: you can't control research: you can murder Lysenko's opponent but you can't make him right and in a fight between ideology and reality, reality wind eventually. Autocracy is all about control, and research is the anathema to that. It may often tell you thing that are directly contradictory to deeply held beliefs.

I mean just look at how the "biological sex" crowd respond to things like XY-CAIS, XY/XX mosaic chimerism, 46XX DSD, Swyer syndrome,

Re: (Score:2)

by Quantum gravity ( 2576857 )

Yes. Democratic values like freedom and equality require voters to understand how the world works, and science is the best way to achieve that knowledge.

Re: (Score:2)

by Barsteward ( 969998 )

[1]Autocrats, demigods, dictators, Trump love the uneducated. [reuters.com]

[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/world/trump-loves-the-poorly-educated-and-social-media-clamors-idUSKCN0VX2DE/

Re: (Score:2)

by sg_oneill ( 159032 )

There has been a long running pattern where the think tanks that supply policy to the GOP have seen various sciences as threats to their economic beliefs.

Climate change is a big one. Physics doesn't *care* if the economy is more efficient if we ignore externalities. Cancer doesn't *care* if killing it with chemotherapy might require spending some tax dollars. Covid never cared if social distancing meant that some hours ought be spent away from the office.

Then you've got the religion issue. Christianity, Jud

Re: (Score:2)

by evanh ( 627108 )

Misery is easy.

Re: The long-term impact of this on the US (Score:2)

by Fons_de_spons ( 1311177 )

> The Trump administration has been an anathema to science for reasons which I fail to comprehend. Can someone explain why this is? Is this just something fascist autocrats do?

>> I believe if you boil it down, binary thinking explains a lot. Something is true or false. Good or bad in their mind. So, science? Good or bad? Well, it is complicated and that is a wrong answer. It can only be good or bad! So, too much annoyances because of science? Cholesterol is bad, I need a diet. Oh... news article says that high Cholesterol is not necessarily bad(it is complicated) Who does this dokter think he is, putting me on a diet when he knows shit! A bit more of these things and the bit flips. Science = bad. Their thinking becomes limited to simple truths. Science bad, American values good, immigrants bad, ... It is the only thing that holds if you think binary.

Re: The long-term impact of this on the US (Score:2)

by fluffernutter ( 1411889 )

Hey at least America is getting what they voted for!!

Re: (Score:3)

by serviscope_minor ( 664417 )

And now it's being systematically destroyed by one psychotic senile moron

Afraid to say it's not. Not not being destroyed. Not by one psychopathic senile moron. I mean he is, certainly, but he still has an approval rating of 34%. That's about 70 million complete morons or so. You have about 34%of the population cheering him on.

This isn't a bug, it's a feature... (Score:2)

by jaygull ( 10381371 )

...of the republican party.

Putin (Score:2)

by fluffernutter ( 1411889 )

Wow was Putin smart for backing this guy.

Re: Putin (Score:2)

by fluffernutter ( 1411889 )

Heck, Canada should have backed him too!

Re: Putin (Score:2)

by Fons_de_spons ( 1311177 )

Canada... no... don't... Stay true to yourselves... Please be proud to be that great friendly country you are. Love you! Greetings from the EU.

Re: Putin (Score:2)

by fluffernutter ( 1411889 )

Thank you friend! I'm starting to wonder if we should BE in the EU.

Re: Putin (Score:2)

by Fons_de_spons ( 1311177 )

Very welcome!

Re: (Score:2)

by Rei ( 128717 )

I'm sure you'd be welcome if you ever wanted to - you're already ideologically highly aligned (and never really were with the US...) :) Honestly, economically and geopolitically it'd be a very strong alliance for both parties, as what Canada offers vs. what it needs is a good match for what the EU offers vs. what it needs. Though admittedly both parties need to rearm fast - but the EU has a lot more resources to do that than Canada has on its own. Canada has raw materials, EU needs them. Canadian automake

$6 million each (Score:2)

by mkwan ( 2589113 )

The RNA medical researchers will be a loss. But climate change inequality researchers? Most Americans will be glad to see the back of them.

Re: $6 million each (Score:2)

by fluffernutter ( 1411889 )

... Right because you can't afford Canadian softwood so you are going to cut down all your trees which will solve the first fire problem. Brilliant!

History books which contain no lies are extremely dull.