For decades, the United States has been a magnet for talent, attracting some of the world’s best scientific minds to its universities and laboratories.
But deep cuts to research funding and the cancellation of grants that the Trump administration finds objectionable could weaken American higher education’s standing, dealing a blow to its ability to attract and retain top graduate students. Already, a number of colleges have reduced or paused admission to doctoral programs because of the uncertainty.
Because academe and science in this country are substantially dependent on a steady influx of bright young scholars from around the globe, President Trump’s policies could have a disproportionate impact on overseas recruitment of Ph.D. students. Forty-three percent of full-time doctoral students in STEM fields are on student visas.
The reduction in foreign Ph.D. students could have a cascading effect: About 6 in 10 postdoctoral fellows are from abroad. And the vast majority of international graduates of American science and engineering doctoral programs stay in this country, building careers in higher education and in the private sector.
The funding freeze is not the only potential headwind. The Trump administration is expected to block or severely restrict travel to the United States by citizens of more than 40 countries, including some that are key sources for Ph.D. programs. Congress is considering a ban on all Chinese students, reviving the scrutiny of Chinese students and scholars that marked President Trump’s first term.
Experts were already concerned that the United States’ established dominance in research and innovation was at risk of eroding. Last month, just weeks after the funding cuts were announced, a commission of 70 academic, business, and public leaders released a report warning that American science “was at a crossroads.” Among the group’s recommendations: The U.S. must do a better job of drawing overseas talent and reform its immigration system to keep outstanding scientists and engineers.
The current turmoil could have long-term consequences for the American research ecosystem. “These cuts, if they stand, pose a systemic risk to American scientific leadership and economic competitiveness,” said Chris R. Glass, a professor of educational leadership and higher education at Boston College. “This is self-inflicted brain drain.”
“We’re witnessing the world’s premier scientific power voluntarily dismantling its international talent pipeline.”
Short-term impact
When the National Institutes of Health — the largest source of federal funding for American research universities and the biggest public funder of biomedical research in the world — announced in early February that it would make far-reaching changes to its grantmaking policy, there was no mention of international students or Ph.D. programs. Instead, the Trump administration cast the cap on indirect funding — monies provided to universities, hospitals, and medical centers to cover the costs of facilities, equipment, and staff — as a huge savings for taxpayers.
But government grants and doctoral education are closely intertwined, particularly in the sciences. Unlike foreign undergraduate and master’s students, whose tuition dollars have become an increasingly important source of revenue to American colleges, universities pay Ph.D. students to live and study here, often using federal awards. The United States invests between a quarter and a half million dollars in each STEM doctoral student, said Mark A. Barteau, a professor of chemistry at Texas A&M University.
In exchange, students work in research groups or labs. Along with postdocs, they are the backbone of scientific research.
Those populations have grown more international. Over the past two decades, the number of science and engineering doctorates awarded to temporary-visa holders has risen by 114 percent, according to the National Science Foundation. During the same period, degrees to U.S. citizens and permanent residents increased by 59 percent.
In a number of critical fields, international students are the majority: They account for 64 percent of doctoral recipients in computer and information sciences, 57 percent in engineering, and 54 percent mathematics and statistics.
“They’re a very large part of the Ph.D. ecosystem,” said Suzanne Ortega, president of the Council of Graduate Schools.
Part of the solution, of course, is to interest more Americans in STEM. Last month’s commission report, called the Vision for American Science and Technology, calls for “concerted action” to build a homegrown high-tech work force, beginning in elementary and secondary schools.
Cuts to research funding, however, mean fewer graduate opportunities for domestic and international students alike. For now, the pipeline flows from overseas into American labs and classrooms. Glass, the Boston College professor, estimates that if the current cuts, which are being challenged in court, hold, they could lead to a 15- to 20-percent drop in international STEM enrollments.
Any funding that remains might not be a strong enough draw to foreign students and scholars. The Trump administration’s threats to deport those who take part in campus protests could have a chilling effect. Widespread reductions in public spending could mean fewer government workers to process visas. Lawmakers have expressed concern about the national-security risks of scientific engagement with China, the top country of origin for foreign recipients of American Ph.D.s in science and engineering. The chairman of a U.S. House select committee on China recently sent a letter to six major research universities asking for a list of all Chinese graduate students and their involvement in federally funded research.
The proposed travel ban includes Iran on a “red list” of countries that could be completely barred from the United States. Despite geopolitical tensions, Iranians earn more science and engineering doctorates in the United States than all but three other nations. The research-funding decline plus travel restrictions could be a double whammy.
Long-term disruption
Much of the focus is on the impact on ongoing research projects and the current admissions cycle. But if the cuts remain in place, the fallout could be long-term. “I worry about how today’s headlines will reverberate in 10 years, in 20 years,” said Barteau, the Texas A&M professor.
Barteau chaired a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine committee that last year issued a report on the international competition for scientific and technological talent. Some countries, like China, have formal government talent-recruitment programs that offer incentives for overseas-trained academics to lead their labs and research programs. In the United States, the talent-recruitment program “is called graduate school,” Barteau said.
Many of those students then stay on as postdoctoral scholars. The work of international postdocs doesn’t “take away jobs from native-born Americans but complement[s] their work by building a talent pool in America unmatched globally,” said Thomas P. Kimbis, executive director of the National Postdoctoral Association. He said it would be a “sad day” if the United States put in place policies that deterred international postdocs.
A recent survey by the National Postdoctoral Association found that both domestic and international postdocs were worried about the impact of funding cuts and executive orders on their research, with 43 percent saying their positions were threatened.
A postdoc is often a waystation in an American research career. Three-quarters of international Ph.D. graduates typically remain in the United States after earning their degree, far higher than the 20-percent retention rate for foreign bachelor’s-degree recipients.
When the Center for Security and Emerging Technology at Georgetown University examined the careers of international STEM doctoral graduates over the last quarter-century, it found that nearly half of those who earned their degrees before 2004 had become American citizens.
Many remain in academe, but others go into the private sector. More than 40 percent of the American STEM work force with a doctorate is foreign-born. A quarter of the billion-dollar startup companies in the United States have a founder who first came to America as an international student.
A Carnegie Mellon University doctoral student from Thailand had planned to stay in the United States after earning his degree. But reductions in funding, along with concerns that the government could dictate areas of research, has him reconsidering. “The freedom to pursue high-quality research is important to me,” the student said. “When I see that excellence is not valued or that someone is pushing their ideas on my research, it’s not the ideal environment.”
A prospective graduate student from Germany with conditional offers from several American graduate programs was also having second thoughts. “It’s not just a decision about education,” she said, “but about my life and career.”
Competition from other countries
A decline in doctoral students abroad could also strain important international-research collaboration. Even when students return home after earning their Ph.D., they maintain ties with their advisers, mentors, and fellow students and postdocs. These connections form “the foundation and the beginning of international collaboration in research,” said Jenny Lee, dean of international education at the University of Arizona, whose research focuses on global education.
Academics who did not study abroad lack such networks, Lee said.
Meanwhile, other countries are not standing still. Some have existing national blueprints for recruitment of international students and scholars. Others may seek to step into the vacuum that could be caused by declines in American support for research and graduate education. Two French universities, for instance, Aix Marseilles and Paris-Saclay, have started programs to attract researchers from the United States.
“The pipeline of talent can be redirected,” said Glass, of Boston College.
And scholars worry that American leadership in innovation, already in need of reinvestment and reinvigoration, could slip.
“Once these patterns get set, it’s like a ball rolling down a hill,” said Marie Lynn Miranda, chancellor of the University of Illinois at Chicago and a member of the commission calling for a new science strategy for the United States. “Once we have to push it back up the hill, the longer it takes and the harder it is to recover.”
