Latest news with #brain drain
ABC News
11 hours ago
- Politics
- ABC News
A silver lining to US research funding woes
Belinda Smith: Hi, this is The Science Show, and I'm Belinda Smith, keeping Robyn Williams' seat toasty and warm for the next few weeks. Few activities are as satisfying as making something, whether that's baking the perfect pavlova or knocking up a nesting box. But how would you even begin to create, I don't know, a brand new flavor or bring back to life an extinct species of frog? Those stories are coming up but first is the US experiencing a brain drain? News Grab: Good morning. It's now 5.35 here in the east. We are allowing all of our stations across the country to join us. Now with the breaking news, we are projecting at this hour the 47th president of the United States. Uh, Donald Trump will be, uh, elected to return to the White House. Belinda Smith: Since President Donald Trump retook office, the state of scientific research in the States has been well precarious, to say the least. The administration immediately implemented a federal spending freeze, so that included government funded grants and has proposed billions of dollars in cuts to science and health research. Billions with a B. It's just so hard to keep up with all of this, and it's not even been six months. The silver lining is that other countries like Australia are taking advantage of the situation and targeting programs at US researchers. ABC Health reporter, Olivia Willis, has been looking into this and she joins me now. So Liv, what's the latest out of the states when it comes to research funding? Olivia Willis: So since Trump's return to office in January, there's been. As you say, a real frenzy of government funding freezes, cuts, executive orders, all of which have had a major impact on scientific and medical research on national science and health agencies in the us um, but also science and health funding in, in many parts of the world that are reliant on US funding and that includes, uh, researchers in Australia. We know that so far. Well over a thousand research grants have been terminated at government agencies, including the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and NASA. Together, those total, several billions of dollars, and there's many more grants that have also been flagged for review. And then on top of that, hundreds of staff have been cut from some of these federal agencies that I mentioned, as well as. The Centers for Disease Control, the FDA and the Trump administration has also targeted specific universities, many of which are Ivy League schools, places like Harvard and Columbia, and frozen their federal funding if they don't comply with a set of demands that the government has laid out. And they're often things related to affirmative action, diversity initiatives, um, campus protests and so on. Big picture for year, the White House budget. Their proposal now is to cut. The National Institutes of Health, their budget by 40%, and the National Science Foundation's budget by 55%. So very, very significant. I will say that thinking broadly about these cuts, the government has said that they're essentially about eliminating waste and bias in government funded research. But I think, you know, they're also the result of efforts to combat what the Trump administration has described as gender, ideology, um, and an executive order to end diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. So we know that many of the cancel grants or grants under review focus on marginalized and underrepresented groups, uh, racial and ethnic minorities. So groups that have, have been largely understudied historically, and the Trump administration perhaps doesn't see this type of research as benefiting broadly the health of all Americans. Belinda Smith: What other areas of faced cuts? Olivia Willis: There's also research areas that have lost funding simply because they're not priorities of the Trump administration or, or I guess the government doesn't see them as fitting in with their own scientific agenda. So things like research into vaccine misinformation, uh, hiv aids, climate science, clean energy. I should note that this is a really fast moving situation and things will probably change. So we know that a number of lawsuits have been launched against the government regarding these funding freezes and cuts. Some of them have been successful. Just a couple of weeks ago, a federal judge ruled that the cancellation of more than $1 billion in research grants at the National Institutes of Health. That they were illegal in order for them to be reinstated. It looks like the government will file an appeal on that judgment, but in the meantime, staff at at certain agencies have been instructed not to cancel any further grants. So it's definitely a fast moving, unfolding dynamic situation. I. Belinda Smith: And may get dragged through the courts for months and months to come. Olivia Willis: I think so. Belinda Smith: Mm. What have these cuts done to researchers? Olivia Willis: Well, I think it's probably important to think about the context of how significant the US is as a player in research funding globally. So. It's, it's one of the biggest funders in the world of research and development. The National Institutes of Health alone is the biggest funder of medical research globally. A huge number of researchers around the world would benefit off funding from that agency. Um, and in 2023, it was estimated that the US actually provided 30% of all global r and d funding. So you can. Get a sense there from just how much they contribute to what those cuts would mean in terms of specific research fields. There's, you know, we're seeing areas of research, I guess, that have been threatened because huge chunks of their funding have been wiped out. And then for the researchers. The people who work at these federal agencies, a lot of people have lost their jobs, um, or their funding. That of course includes principal investigators and professors, but also early career researchers, PhD students, people who rely on scholarships. And I think the other thing is that for many scientists, it appears to have really created, I guess, a climate of, of fear and worry about their jobs and the viability of their research long term. Belinda Smith: You are listening to Belinda Smith on the Science Show, and I'm talking to health reporter Olivia Willis, about the state of research funding in the United States. Now, I've seen reports of countries that are seeing this as an opportunity for them to really beef up their local scientific expertise and try and get that US talent to relocate to their countries and establish their research programs There. What's been going on in that space and what's Australia's done? Olivia Willis: Yeah, we are, so there's several European universities that have set up initiatives. Um, countries like France and Canada are actively recruiting. The European Commission recently announced 500 million euros to make Europe a magnet for researchers in the next two years. So I suspect that's going to be a popular location for some US scientists when it comes to Australia. There are a number of research institutes. That I know have received really significant interest from US researchers since these cuts have happened. And recruiting scientists is something that the Australian Academy of Science is actively working on. So in April, they set up a program to nationally coordinate this recruitment effort. It's called the Global Talent Attraction Program, and I recently spoke to the academy's chief executive, Anna Maria Arabia, about this. Anna-Maria Arabia: We know that talent is everywhere. Uh, but opportunity is not everywhere. And, uh, this is a, an initiative to attract to Australia leading talent that we know, uh, builds capability in Australia that builds our, uh, scientific talent pool. Um, that enables scientific advancements and industries, um, to be seeded and to grow. Um, importantly, talent like this train and mentor, the next generation of young Australian scientists, uh, we know it creates jobs. Um, and, and we know science and technology is part of a really, um, rapid, uh, global race at the moment. Belinda Smith: So the Australian Academy of Sciences calls this a global talent attraction program, but it sounds quite targeted to the us Olivia Willis: Yeah, that's right. So at least initially it is specifically for US scientists, um, and also Australian scientists in the US who are wanting to return home. As I mentioned, in April, they launched the program and that was about essentially getting funders for it and people to kind of support this research. But it was actually just this week that they've announced that applications for the program are now open. Belinda Smith: So it's early days yet really in terms of getting people involved in the program that might be interested in coming to Australia. Do you know if the Australian Academy of Sciences has any priorities in terms of the, the types of research that they're particularly interested in attracting? Olivia Willis: So the program itself, they've described as discipline agnostic, meaning I think that it, it's not limited to any specific areas of research. That being said, when I spoke to Anna Maria Arabia about it, she told me that one of the reasons they wanted to launch it was so they could assess applications against Australia's. What they call capability gaps. So she talked about areas like data science, statistics, mathematics, um, all being areas that as a kind of research landscape we need to bolster and also touched on issues about the fact that our population is aging, that we need to decarbonize. So it sounds like there will be. Some kind of strategic considerations that are made when they're looking at the types of, um, the, the areas of research that they want to bring more expertise in. Anna-Maria Arabia: We are also looking at areas where there is just outstanding talent that we know if they were to come to Australia, there is no doubt that the multiplier effect and the impact of their contribution, uh, would be many times, uh, what it costs to bring them here. It is the story of Australia. Uh, so many of our leading scientists today were born overseas. We look at our own fellowship, who Australia's most distinguished scientists, and we did account since 2017. Um, the fellows elected to the academy. 42% of them were born overseas. It is the Australian story. Uh, our research effort is relatively young and since World War II and so many of our stellar scientists, you only need to think of Professor Michelle Simmons or Lydia Roka or Brian Schmidt, all born abroad, all bought their capability here as young scientists who, who seeded, uh, talent here, who nurtured the next generation and have now built Um, research sectors and industries we could have only dreamed of. Olivia Willis: So what does this program involve? So once the academy has identified scientists that they're interested in bringing to Australia, they'll work with universities and research institutes to look at. Basically where they can place them so the universities and the research organizations will host them. And my understanding is the Academy's talent attraction program will provide the research funding and the relocation support. Belinda Smith: Mm-hmm. And what about like local researchers? You know, it, it's, it's a, it's a tough old grind being scientists having to apply for grants and. Olivia Willis: Is there any support for local people? It is a great question and it's something I put to her as well. You know, as you say, research funding is extremely competitive in Australia. A lot of researchers miss out, and so I asked whether that was a concern, you know, pouring funding into US scientists or international researchers when many of our own researchers are struggling to get grants. Anna-Maria Arabia: I think we should do everything we can in Australia to nurture young talent, but I feel that these are related, but separate strategies. Uh, so to those young researchers, I would say, uh, through this program we are attracting to Australia, uh, individuals who will inspire you, who will mentor and train you. Um, and provide opportunities that don't exist today. They are not taking away money that would otherwise go to support early career researchers. In fact, they create opportunities for them. Belinda Smith: That was Anna Maria Arabia, CEO of the Australian Academy of Science and ABC Health reporter Olivia Willis, filling us in on the US research funding situation. And now a story of scientific endeavor from our shores. Come with me and let's take a trip back to 2013.
Forbes
16-06-2025
- Business
- Forbes
A Silent Offboarding Crisis: How Knowledge Is Lost Before Resignations
Bhushan Parikh, Cofounder and Principal at Get Digital Velocity, LLC. When firms consider offboarding, they often think of letters of resignation, farewells and the formal transfer of information. However, the actual offboarding, where organizations begin to lose critical knowledge, often occurs long before and much more quietly. In hybrid and remote work arrangements that are now prevalent, employees can mentally check out weeks or months before they leave for good. This era of "silent offboarding" is dangerous—not because they're not being productive, but because their knowledge is departing quietly and undocumented. Silent offboarding occurs when an employee begins psychologically leaving their job, typically due to burnout, misalignment or the allure of new possibilities. It's subtle and isn't always evident in performance metrics, but it is real. Common indicators include: • Less documentation or knowledge sharing • Not working cross-functionally • Has nothing to say in meetings • Reduced activity when targeting team issues Even though these changes in behavior may appear subtle, they offer insight into the early stages of organizational knowledge decay. The true cost of brain drain lies in the loss of invisible capital: the unwritten, often unspoken knowledge that keeps systems and teams running smoothly. This includes undocumented custom code, hidden shortcuts and informal processes that aren't captured anywhere but are critical to operations. It also encompasses the reasoning behind major architectural, operational or client decisions—insights that rarely make it into official documentation. Relationships, too, suffer as the subtle dynamics between teams, partners or clients fade away. And finally, there's the history of workflows: the experiments, workarounds and accumulated lessons learned from navigating technical debt, which often leave with the people who lived through them. The traditional offboarding processes—handovers, documentation sprints or 'last-week downloads'—are often too little, too late. And by the time it's gone, this nuance has largely evaporated. First, it's due to remote and hybrid work. Since workers are not in one physical space, it's easier to emotionally check out without it being noticed immediately. Without those informal check-ins and hallway chats, you lose some of the natural pulse-taking you'd otherwise get to sense engagement. The "great resignation" and a competitive talent market also create shorter tenures, which results in more rapid knowledge turnover. And unfortunately, siloed and uncodified expertise still exists in many teams, often leaving them vulnerable to disastrous situations when key personnel leave. To reduce the consequences of silent offboarding, organizations should encourage positive knowledge continuity practices: • Foster a culture of always documenting. Seek to ensure employees document processes, decisions and learnings as a common hobby. Leverage knowledge pools with facilitation through collaborative tools like Google Docs. • Conduct routine "continuity conversations." Rather than waiting for exit interviews, have regular conversations about knowledge transfer and role clarity. Such discussions can expose areas where knowledge is missing and documentation is needed. • Use analytics to spot early demotivation. Utilize people analytics tools, such as Microsoft Viva or Visier, to identify early signs of disengagement, such as reduced collaboration and precipitous productivity declines. Timely interventions can be made through early detection. • Facilitate cross-pollination and knowledge sharing. Foster an environment where team members share their skills and knowledge to promote a collaborative and inclusive culture. That way, they can also ensure that necessary knowledge doesn't live only in one person's head but rather across the workforce. • Recognize and reward sharing knowledge. Praise those who go out of their way to share their expertise and train those in a position to share. Acknowledgment can induce more active knowledge-sharing behavior. Companies such as GitLab or Atlassian run on documentation as a fundamental part of their operations. Their remote-friendly culture fosters resilience, with all decisions being transparent and someone being accountable for every process. You can't rely on whoever shows up to the next virtual meeting to carry your institutional memory. Turnover of talent is inevitable, but loss of knowledge doesn't have to be. For organizations, silent offboarding is tantamount to a loss of manpower. As workforces become increasingly dispersed in the future and employees become more mobile than ever, retaining institutional memory is a significant business concern. Enterprises need to move away from reactive offboarding practices to proactive knowledge continuity plans. In doing so, they protect their intellectual property and promote a culture of openness and sharing. Forbes Technology Council is an invitation-only community for world-class CIOs, CTOs and technology executives. Do I qualify?
