
The slow death of American science has already begun
is an editorial director at Vox overseeing the climate, tech, and world teams, and is the editor of Vox's Future Perfect section. He worked at Time magazine for 15 years as a foreign correspondent in Asia, a climate writer, and an international editor, and he wrote a book on existential risk.
Demonstrators take part in a 'Stand Up For Science' rally at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC, on March 7, 2025. Alex Wroblewski/AFP via Getty Images
In Ezra Klein and Derk Thompson's new book Abundance — which maybe you've heard of — they tell the story of Katalin Karikó, the Hungarian American scientist whose work ultimately led to the mRNA Covid vaccines.
Related A longtime target of the right is finally buckling under Trump pressure
When the research center she was working for in Hungary lost its state funding in the early 1980s, Karikó left her homeland, selling her car for 900 British pounds and sewing the cash into her daughter's teddy bear so her family had something to live on. Like countless other researchers around the world, she found her way to the country where a scientist had the best chance of finding the funding and support to further their work: America.
Future Perfect
Explore the big, complicated problems the world faces and the most efficient ways to solve them. Sent twice a week. Email (required)
Sign Up
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Thompson and Klein, one of Vox's founders, mostly use Karikó's story to illustrate the way risk aversion holds back science. Karikó was convinced that mRNA could be harnessed for new kinds of treatments and vaccines, but she experienced rejection after rejection from short-sighted grantmakers at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). It was only when the Covid pandemic struck that the enormous value of Karikó's mRNA work was finally recognized. The mRNA vaccines ultimately saved as many as 20 million lives in just one year, and Karikó won the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 2023.
But wind the tape back.
Even before her years of rejection in American academia, had Karikó never been able to immigrate, she might never have been in a position to further her research in the first place. Perhaps we never would have had the mRNA vaccines — or even if we had, they would have been the product of another nation, one that would have reaped the benefits that ultimately went to the US.
Instead, Karikó is one of a long line of foreign scientists, with the support of America's unparalleled university system and government support, achieved greatness that benefited her and her adopted country. The US has won more Nobel Prizes in the sciences than any other country by far, and immigrant scientists won more than a third of those Prizes, a proportion that has only increased in recent years.
America has become a scientific colossus not just because it has spent more than any other nation on research and development, but because it made itself a magnet for global scientific talent, from superstar researchers to lowly junior scientists like Karikó. That, in turn, has translated to enormous economic benefit. According to one study, government-funded research and development has been responsible for 25 percent of productivity growth since the end of World War II.
Now the Trump administration is working to destroy all of that through catastrophic funding cuts and blatantly nativist immigration policies. And the result will be nothing less than an act of national suicide.
That's what the money's for
This is very bad. Sheer dollar power has always been a key ingredient in American scientific dominance, going back to the country's enormous advances during World War II. (As important as geniuses like J. Robert Oppenheimer were to the development of the atomic bomb, the US ultimately got there first because it had the resources, as the physicist Niels Bohr put it, to turn the entire country into a factory for nuclear material.) Universities have already resorted to hiring freezes to cope with the cuts, and some are even rescinding admissions offers to PhD students. Some young scientists may simply leave the field altogether, potentially robbing us of future Karikós.
But there has already been some success in pushing back against these cuts. On Friday, a federal judge permanently barred the Trump administration from limiting funding from the NIH to support academic research, though the ruling is almost certain to be appealed. And even if funding is cut, future administrations could restore it, while alternative sources of money can be found in the interim. What the Trump administration is doing with funding is a body blow to American science, but doesn't have to be a fatal one.
What is happening with immigration policy, however, is another matter altogether.
Killing the golden goose
The Trump administration has made no secret of the fact it is deliberately targeting foreign students in the US that have been involved — sometimes only peripherally — in pro-Palestinian protests. Mahmoud Khalil, a green-card holder from Algeria who was a grad student at Columbia University, is currently sitting in custody in Louisiana after his arrest by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. Another international student, Rümeysa Öztürk of Tufts University, was arrested and scheduled for deportation, apparently for the crime of co-writing a newspaper op-ed criticizing Israel's actions in Gaza.
But those are just the most high-profile cases. The New York Times reported this week that nearly 300 international students at universities around the US have had their visas suddenly revoked and could face deportation. (That figure could be higher when you read this — every time I clicked on the headline yesterday, the number of visas revoked went up.) There have also been reports of harassment and detainment of foreigners legally crossing the US border, which adds to a state of fear for any noncitizens.
A few hundred students may not seem like that much, given that the US granted more than 400,000 visas in 2024 alone. But the message from the administration, which is also apparently scouring student visa applicants' social media for evidence of 'hostile attitudes' toward America or Israel, is clear: We don't want you here. And students and scientists are listening.
In a recent poll by the journal Nature of more than 1,200 scientists in the US, three-quarters said they were considering leaving the country. This was especially true of the young scientists who are set to form the next vanguard of American research. Foreign scientists who might otherwise come to the US for conferences or short-term positions are rethinking those plans, afraid — with reason — they might end up inside an ICE detainment facility. Other countries like China and Canada are already making overtures to scientists in the US, because they're smart enough to grab an opportunity when they see one. As one recent Times opinion piece put it, the Trump administration's actions 'could mean America's demise as the most powerful force for innovation in science, health and technology in the 21st century.'
Could they be replaced by American students? Don't bet on it.
To push out foreign scientists who are here and shut the door to those who would come would cause incalculable damage to the US. Jeremy Neufeld of the Institute for Progress has called the recruitment of brilliant immigrant scientists to the US the 'secret ingredient' in American dynamism. A 2022 study found that immigrants have accounted for 36 percent of total innovation in the US since 1990, as measured through patents, while more than half of the billion-dollar US startups over the last 20 years have an immigrant co-founder.
And now, apparently, we don't want them anymore.
Destroying our future
A boutique industry has emerged recently trying to make sense of the seemingly senseless actions of Trump and Musk. One theory is that Musk is doing what he often did at his companies: cutting things to the bone, and then adjusting as he sees what breaks.
This can work — Musk didn't build multibillion-dollar companies like Tesla and SpaceX by accident — but it depends on being able to see the effects of what is cut immediately, through a fast information feedback loop. If Musk makes a change to a SpaceX rocket and it blows up, well, there's his answer.
But as Klein said on a recent podcast, 'the government doesn't have very fast feedback loops.' And that's especially true for something as long-term as science funding and talent.
Katalin Karikó came to the US in 1985, but it wasn't until 35 years later that her true value as a scientist was borne out. We may not immediately feel the impact of fewer foreign scientists coming to the US and staying here, but the impact is real. We'll feel it when we see scientists in other countries take home Nobel Prizes, when China laps us in vital fields like biotechnology and AI, when we struggle to find the people and the ideas that can create the next world-beating companies. We'll feel it when America becomes just another country.
A version of this story originally appeared in the Future Perfect newsletter. Sign up here!
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Atlantic
11 hours ago
- Atlantic
Oceans Awash in Plastic Waste
An estimated 11 million metric tons of plastic enter oceans each year, according to the U.S. State Department—and some of it accumulates in highly visible ways. Şebnem Coşkun / Anadolu / Getty Turkish free diver Şahika Ercümen dives amid plastic waste on the Ortaköy coastline to raise awareness of plastic pollution in the oceans, and to observe the conditions in the Bosphorus Strait in Istanbul, Turkey, on June 27, 2020. Nhac Nguyen / AFP / Getty A Vietnamese woman gathers shells in a coastal forest littered with plastic waste that stuck in branches after it was washed up by the rising tide, in Thanh Hoa province, about 150 kilometers south of Hanoi, Vietnam, on May 18, 2018. Nina Gomes recovers a discarded plastic bag from ocean waters near the Copacabana beach in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on March 19, 2024. Bags of plastic waste and garbage recovered from the Great Pacific Garbage Patch are unloaded at the Port of Victoria in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, on July 23, 2024. The Ocean Cleanup is a nonprofit organization founded in 2013 that develops and deploys technologies to rid the world's oceans of plastic. A plastic ball floats in the Strait of Gibraltar, about 6.8 miles (11 kilometers) away from the nearest shore, near Barbate, Spain, on July 31, 2018. Bhushan Koyande / Hindustan Times / Getty Children walk through tons of plastic waste on a shallow shoreline near Badhwar Park in Mumbai, India, on June 4, 2025. Raşid Necati Aslim / Anadolu / Getty A giant 11-meter-long whale sculpture called Whale on the Wharf , made of recycled plastic waste, is placed in London's Canary Wharf area on April 15, 2025, to draw attention to plastic pollution in the oceans. In this photo taken on October 22, 2019, plastic and other debris sit on a beach on Midway Atoll in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands. According to a study released in 2020, more than a million tons a year of America's plastic trash isn't ending up where it should. The equivalent of as many as 1,300 plastic grocery bags per person is landing in places such as oceans and roadways. In this photo from October 22, 2019, small pieces of plastic waste are shown in the decomposed carcass of a seabird on a beach on Midway Atoll. In one of the most remote places on Earth, Midway Atoll is a wildlife sanctuary that should be a safe haven for seabirds and other marine animals. Instead, creatures here struggle to survive as their bellies fill with plastic from faraway places. Josep Lago / AFP via Getty This photo taken on January 12, 2024, shows plastic nurdles at La Pineda beach in Tarragona, Spain. Cem Ozdel / Anadolu / Getty Modou Fall, a Senegalese environmental activist also known as 'Plastic Man,' is raising awareness about environmental pollution with his costume made of hundreds of plastic bags. He's shown here in Dakar, Senegal, on March 27, 2025. The 55-year-old Plastic Man organizes discussions and various events to educate the public about environmental pollution and climate change. Wearing his plastic outfit and carrying a note on his chest reading Africa is not a trash can , he walks the streets and beaches of Dakar to highlight the impact of plastic use on the environment. Olivier Morin / AFP / Getty This photo shows several dead herring trapped in a plastic packaging net on May 3, 2023, near Pietarsaari, Finland, as the late spring's sea ice was melting slowly. Benson Ibeabuchi / AFP / Getty A view of a canal that empties into Lagos Lagoon, clogged with rigid foam and single-use plastic, at Obalende in Lagos, Nigeria, on January 23, 2024. Agung Parameswara / Getty Small pieces of plastic that washed ashore on Kedonganan Beach and were collected in Kedonganan, Bali, Indonesia, shown on February 2, 2021. In Bali, known for its beaches and sunsets, the northwest monsoon brings vast amounts of plastic waste to its world-famous shores. Volunteers from a nongovernmental organization hold hands after cleaning the São Conrado beach in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on June 8, 2023, as part of World Oceans Day. Tahsin Ceylan / Anadolu / Getty Divers from the Turkish Underwater Sports Federation and Kas Underwater Association team carry out underwater cleaning operations off the coast of Antalya's Kas district on May 4, 2025. During the sea-cleaning operation, a large variety of items such as cellphones, plastic chairs, plates, forks, hats, glass, and plastic bottles were removed. Mladen Antonov / AFP / Getty A wave carrying plastic waste and other rubbish washes up on a beach in Koh Samui in the Gulf of Thailand on January 19, 2021. Li Xinjun / Xinhua / Getty Primary-school students clean up garbage at Binhai Park in Rongcheng City, in east China's Shandong Province, on June 4, 2025.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Beyond de-extinction and dire wolves, gene editing can help today's endangered species
Have you been hearing about the dire wolf lately? Maybe you saw a massive white wolf on the cover of Time magazine or a photo of 'Game of Thrones' author George R.R. Martin holding a puppy named after a character from his books. The dire wolf, a large, wolflike species that went extinct about 12,000 years ago, has been in the news after biotech company Colossal claimed to have resurrected it using cloning and gene-editing technologies. Colossal calls itself a 'de-extinction' company. The very concept of de-extinction is a lightning rod for criticism. There are broad accusations of playing God or messing with nature, as well as more focused objections that contemporary de-extinction tools create poor imitations rather than truly resurrected species. While the biological and philosophical debates are interesting, the legal ramifications for endangered species conservation are of paramount importance. As a legal scholar with a Ph.D. in wildlife genetics, my work focuses on how we legally define the term 'endangered species.' The use of biotechnology for conservation, whether for de-extinction or genetic augmentation of existing species, promises solutions to otherwise intractable problems. But it needs to work in harmony with both the letter and purpose of the laws governing biodiversity conservation. What did Colossal actually do? Scientists extracted and sequenced DNA from Ice Age-era bones to understand the genetic makeup of the dire wolf. They were able to piece together around 90% of a complete dire wolf genome. While the gray wolf and the dire wolf are separated by a few million years of evolution, they share over 99.5% of their genomes. The scientists scanned the recovered dire wolf sequences for specific genes that they believed were responsible for the physical and ecological differences between dire wolves and other species of canids, including genes related to body size and coat color. CRISPR gene-editing technology allows scientists to make specific changes in the DNA of an organism. The Colossal team used CRISPR to make 20 changes in 14 different genes in a modern gray wolf cell before implanting the embryo into a surrogate mother. While the technology on display is marvelous, what should we call the resulting animals? Some commentators argue that the animals are just modified gray wolves. They point out that it would take far more than 20 edits to bridge the gap left by millions of years of evolution. For instance, that 0.5% of the genome that doesn't match in the two species represents over 12 million base pair differences. More philosophically, perhaps, other skeptics argue that a species is more than a collection of genes devoid of environmental, ecological or evolutionary context. Colossal, on the other hand, maintains that it is in the 'functional de-extinction' game. The company acknowledges it isn't making a perfect dire wolf copy. Instead it wants to recreate something that looks and acts like the dire wolf of old. It prefers the 'if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck' school of speciation. Disagreements about taxonomy – the science of naming and categorizing living organisms – are as old as the field itself. Biologists are notorious for failing to adopt a single clear definition of 'species,' and there are dozens of competing definitions in the biological literature. Biologists can afford to be flexible and imprecise when the stakes are merely a conversational misunderstanding. Lawyers and policymakers, on the other hand, do not have that luxury. In the United States, the Endangered Species Act is the main tool for protecting biodiversity. To be protected by the act, an organism must be a member of an endangered or threatened species. Some of the most contentious ESA issues are definitional, such as whether the listed species is a valid 'species' and whether individual organisms, especially hybrids, are members of the listed species. Colossal's functional species concept is anathema to the Endangered Species Act. It shrinks the value of a species down to the way it looks or the way it functions. When passing the act, however, Congress made clear that species were to be valued for their 'aesthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people.' In my view, the myopic focus on function seems to miss the point. Despite its insistence otherwise, Colossal's definitional sleight of hand has opened the door to arguments that people should reduce conservation funding or protections for currently imperiled species. Why spend the money to protect a critter and its habitat when, according to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, you can just 'pick your favorite species and call up Colossal'? Biotechnology can provide real conservation benefits for today's endangered species. I suggest gene editing's real value is not in recreating facsimiles of long-extinct species like dire wolves, but instead using it to recover ones in trouble now. Projects, by both Colossal and other groups, are underway around the world to help endangered species develop disease resistance or evolve to tolerate a warmer world. Other projects use gene editing to reintroduce genetic variation into populations where genetic diversity has been lost. For example, Colossal has also announced that it has cloned a red wolf. Unlike the dire wolf, the red wolf is not extinct, though it came extremely close. After decades of conservation efforts, there are about a dozen red wolves in the wild in the reintroduced population in eastern North Carolina, as well as a few hundred red wolves in captivity. The entire population of red wolves, both wild and captive, descends from merely 14 founders of the captive breeding program. This limited heritage means the species has lost a significant amount of the genetic diversity that would help it continue to evolve and adapt. In order to reintroduce some of that missing genetic diversity, you'd need to find genetic material from red wolves outside the managed population. Right now that would require stored tissue samples from animals that lived before the captive breeding program was established or rediscovering a 'lost' population in the wild. Recently, researchers discovered that coyotes along the Texas Gulf Coast possess a sizable percentage of red wolf-derived DNA in their genomes. Hybridization between coyotes and red wolves is both a threat to red wolves and a natural part of their evolutionary history, complicating management. The red wolf genes found within these coyotes do present a possible source of genetic material that biotechnology could harness to help the captive breeding population if the legal hurdles can be managed. This coyote population was Colossal's source for its cloned 'ghost' red wolf. Even this announcement is marred by definitional confusion. Due to its hybrid nature, the animal Colossal cloned is likely not legally considered a red wolf at all. Under the Endangered Species Act, hybrid organisms are typically not protected. So by cloning one of these animals, Colossal likely sidestepped the need for ESA permits. It will almost certainly run into resistance if it attempts to breed these 'ghost wolves' into the current red wolf captive breeding program that has spent decades trying to minimize hybridization. How much to value genetic 'purity' versus genetic diversity in managed species still proves an extraordinarily difficult question, even without the legal uncertainty. Biotechnology could never solve every conservation problem – especially habitat destruction. The ability to make 'functional' copies of a species certainly does not lessen the urgency to respond to biodiversity loss, nor does it reduce human beings' moral culpability. But to adequately respond to the ever-worsening biodiversity crisis, conservationists will need all available tools. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Alex Erwin, Florida International University Read more: If it looks like a dire wolf, is it a dire wolf? How to define a species is a scientific and philosophical question How redefining just one word could strip the Endangered Species Act's ability to protect vital habitat One green sea turtle can contain the equivalent of 10 ping pong balls in plastic Alex Erwin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.


Forbes
2 days ago
- Forbes
Summer Solstice 2025: Date, Time And How It Works
The sun rises at Stonehenge, near Amesbury, in Wiltshire, southern England on June 21, 2023, during ... More the Summer Solstice festival, which dates back thousands of years, celebrating the longest day of the year. (Photo by DANIEL LEAL/AFP via Getty Images) The June solstice marks the longest day of the year in the Northern Hemisphere and the shortest in the Southern Hemisphere. But what exactly causes this astronomical event? Here's everything you need to know about the summer solstice and the winter solstice in June 2025, including the dates and where to livestream it from Stonehenge in the U.K. Called the summer solstice in the Northern Hemisphere because it heralds the beginning of the new astronomical season of summer, the event takes place this year at precisely 02:42 UTC on Saturday, June 21, 2025 (10:42 p.m. EDT on Friday, June 20). The solstice is one of four major waymarkers of Earth's journey around the sun, the others being the other solstice in December and the two equinoxes in September and March. All are a consequence of the 23.5-degree tilt of Earth's axis with respect to the plane of the solar system. That tilt causes different parts of the planet to get more or less hours of daylight according to the time of year. It's the tilt that causes Earth's seasons. During the summer solstice, the Northern Hemisphere tilts toward the sun, allowing it to appear at its highest point in the sky at noon. The opposite is the case in the Southern Hemisphere. On the date of the June solstice, the sun shines directly overhead at the Tropic of Cancer, an imaginary line around Earth at 23.5 degrees north of the equator (through Mexico, India and Egypt). At the North Pole, the sun doesn't set, while at the South Pole, it doesn't rise. Though the solstice itself isn't easily perceptible, it is often associated with visible changes in the sun's path. The exact point on the horizon that the sun appears to rise and set changes throughout the year. On the June solstice, the sun rises at its most extreme point on the northeast horizon, reaches its highest point in the sky at noon, and sets at its most extreme point on the northwest horizon. It's for that reason that the solstice is celebrated at Stonehenge in the U.K., a monument that is thought to align with the rising sun on the date of the June solstice. English Heritage offers a YouTube livestream of the sunrise on the solstice. Wishing you clear skies and wide eyes.