Canada's Industry Minister Melanie Joly said her country is "very glad" the researchers are choosing to relocate to Canada

Canada is drawing dozens of leading researchers away from US universities as uncertainty over American research funding pushes academics to look north.

Of 64 professors recruited through a new Canadian programme, 48 are coming from the US. They will share funding from a C$504 million (£268 million) government-backed pool to work on areas including climate change and medicine.

US funding turmoil creates an opening

The Trump administration has accused universities of promoting left-wing ideology and failing to tackle alleged antisemitism on campuses. It has also frozen federal research grants for institutions and groups it considers wasteful, creating growing uncertainty for scientists.

Seth Guikema, a climate resilience researcher leaving the University of Michigan, said funding for climate-related work had become increasingly difficult. He will receive C$8 million over eight years at the University of Western Ontario to develop tools for preparing for storms, wildfires and other natural hazards.

Seth Guikema, a climate resiliency researcher, will be moving from the University of Michigan to the University of Western Ontario

Harvard talent is among those heading north

Peter Caravan, who spent two decades as a biopharmaceutical researcher and professor at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, is also relocating.

His research into earlier detection of cancer and chronic diseases will now be based at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. Stephanie Burt, an English professor at Harvard, described the US funding cuts as a “generational disaster” for scientists and said Canada offered academics a far more welcoming environment.

Canada refuses to back down

Canadian Industry Minister Melanie Joly welcomed the incoming researchers and rejected suggestions that the recruitment represented an escalation of tensions with Washington.

“The US administration is taking its own decisions and we're taking ours,” she said.

The move comes as Canada pushes back against the US on trade, with relations between the neighbouring countries increasingly strained.

The bigger fear is America losing its edge

US universities remain among the world's strongest, with MIT, Stanford and Harvard ranked in the global top five by QS.

But Lynn Pasquerella of the American Association of Colleges and Universities warned the real danger was not simply a short-term brain drain. The deeper risk, she said, was that America could become “less attractive as a place to pursue knowledge” — potentially handing Canada a lasting advantage in the global battle for scientific talent.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c209gd5jnq1o

Sure many US academics, scientists, researchers will go to Canada or Europe. But as soon as things calm down in America they will just drop it all and most will go back. So at the end of the day, is it a good deal to take them in and start getting dependant on them ?

Can we send them the lefts beloved virus creater old Mr (puts on a Popeye accent) Oym the Scoyence? He can get some good "research" done north of the border, no need to go all the way to Wuhan.

4 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Can we send them the lefts beloved virus creater old Mr (puts on a Popeye accent) Oym the Scoyence? He can get some good "research" done north of the border, no need to go all the way to Wuhan.

You are fortunate to live at just the right moment for AI to help you out where your own abilities so obviously fail you.

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You are fortunate to live at just the right moment for AI to help you out where your own abilities so obviously fail you.

Dont need AI bro. As you well know I called it bang on in relation to a certain politically unfortuate origin of a certain little virus. And boy-howdy did us sane rational guys pay a price for it.😅

1 hour ago, SingAPorn said:

Sure many US academics, scientists, researchers will go to Canada or Europe. But as soon as things calm down in America they will just drop it all and most will go back. So at the end of the day, is it a good deal to take them in and start getting dependant on them ?

Actually it isn't "will go to Canada or Europe." The brain drain from the US has already started over a year ago.

Jobs of scientists in pharma business isn't something with a start - stop - switch. You can't just relocate and start at day one at the same spot.

These studies can go on for years to come to results wich are usable. Not even - let's switch quick to the lab around the corner... Every one who had to do with lab works and it's enviroment can confirm that. Their (brain) work and all results stay in that lab.

The non-scientist jobs...:

Screwing a car or mobile phone together is the same in any country. Well, with the mobile phones - how was that with the "Trump mobile phone?" Not produced in the US, relies on older components, lacks clear long-term software update commitments, and shifted away from realistic "Made in the USA" manufacturing capabilities.

Scientists and their work isn't something you can just switch around like a metal sheet...

Please tell me that the Gender Study PhD's are leaving, too. And the Intersectional Sociology post grads. And all the other DEI candidates. And whatever Arday pretended to be.

I imagine it's a pretty good time to be a STEM student and researcher in the USA, though.

For the rest of them, please dress warm and don't let the door hit you where the Good Lord split you.

Pretty much these people suckle at the nipple of the tax payer.

Just now, TedG said:

Pretty much these people suckle at the nipple of the tax payer.

I agree.....coming up with ideas and inventions and medicines and treatments and all sorts of solutions..........spongers every one of them

Not just Canada, European Universities are recruiting US academics, France’s Aix-Marseille University, The Nethetlands, SRON, Utrecht University, and TU Delft have all targeted and recruited US academics.

Likewise the Norwegian University of Science and Technology.

In the UK the University of Edinburgh has done particularly well recruiting American Academics.

Despite this exodus of talent America need not worry, there’s a rich vein of untapped talent amongst MAGA’s ‘University of Life Graduates’, especially in the fields of virology, epidemiology, genetics and of course environmental and earth sciences.

canada...the leader in climate change research lol

24 minutes ago, impulse said:

Please tell me that the Gender Study PhD's are leaving, too. And the Intersectional Sociology post grads

beat me to it

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

n the UK the University of Edinburgh has done particularly well recruiting American Academics

how many lol

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Not just Canada, European Universities are recruiting US academics

And then firing them for exposing DEI grifters and fraudsters. Europe is done, stick a fork in it.

17 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

And then firing them for exposing DEI grifters and fraudsters. Europe is done, stick a fork in it.

Says graduate of the University of Life Class of 57.

32 minutes ago, MIke B Bad said:

I agree.....coming up with ideas and inventions and medicines and treatments and all sorts of solutions..........spongers every one of them

A 2019 Research America report found that in 2016, the private sector funded 67% of total U.S. medical and health R&D while the federal government supported 22%. So roughly two-thirds of the money comes from private industry, with government (mostly NIH) funding about a fifth, and the remainder from other sources (foundations, universities, etc.)

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9440766/

34 minutes ago, MIke B Bad said:

I agree.....coming up with ideas and inventions and medicines and treatments and all sorts of solutions..........spongers every one of them

A stark example: One study tracing 18 FDA-approved therapies found NIH funding for those drugs totaled $0.67 billion, while private sector funding totaled $44.3 billion — private funding outweighed public funding by roughly 66-to-1 for that group.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9440766/

42 minutes ago, TedG said:

A 2019 Research America report found that in 2016, the private sector funded 67% of total U.S. medical and health R&D while the federal government supported 22%. So roughly two-thirds of the money comes from private industry, with government (mostly NIH) funding about a fifth, and the remainder from other sources (foundations, universities, etc.)

Then

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9440766/

Doesn't quite work like that. Industry puts very little into basic "blue sky" research (especially in healthcare), which can be speculative, over the horizon stuff. Then when the research has moved on a little, industry wakes up to some development. They only get interested when there are matching government funding, or subsidy. eg. they'll happy to cover the stipend of a doctoral student, or the salary of a postdoc, but they generally don't go in 100% because the risk is too high. Industry then licences in the tech from academia. The early stage research, in academia, is relatively low cost; you have students under the leadership of a principal investigator, making use of shared facilities. The research enjoys free overtime that industry doesn't get. The stipends of a doctoral student are much much lower than a salary for a new graduate. Postdocs don't get paid that much; when I was postdocc'ing in the late 90s, my salary was probably 40-50% of an industry role. Plus Postdocs will work unlimited hours, working weekends, for no extra pay. And, in the US, virtually no benefits.

In academia, you can fund a postdoc for about $100k a year, comprising salary and overheads.

In industry, and this is why looking at the spend is so distorting, costs ratchet up, with much higher overheads. I ran a team, in the defence sector (public company), about 10-11 scientists and engineers, a mix of PhDs and Masters, working on a product that was a spin from the military, that we were reconfiguring for healthcare (usually it goes the other way). We burnt through about $12-15m a year for 4 years. The core chemistry, which involved a means to manipulate and detect nucleic material, we licenced from a US university (not one of the top ones), where the PI had maybe 2-3 postdocs and a revolving door of PhD students.

Industry R&D includes product development. Generally, academia are not developing products. In healthcare, academia generally doesn't pay the high costs to the CROs to run the trials, they don't have to pay for procurement and regulatory managers at quite an early stage of the project. They are not paying for the army of lawyers involved in negotiating those licencing and acquisition deals, covering new products and tech inserts. They don't have anyone involved in TAM analysis to work out the market analysis and route to market. They are not having to deal with 4-5 different regulatory bodies around the world. And Universities don't pay redundancy, which happens in about 60% of industry projects as they get shuttered.

And your study is out of date. It won't tell you where that spend is occurring. Right now, there is so much going into AI, sucking the living daylights out of everything else. European Medtech used to way ahead of the US; it was relatively straightforward to gain MDD or IVDD CE compared to 510k or PMA, with the result that Europeans were able to gain access to the latest tech 7 years ahead of the US. New regulations in Europe have changed that, since politicians had it in their head that medical devices were unsafe (no evidence that EU market devices were less safe than US market devices), and so timelines are extending.

The really interesting place, for healthcare, is China. They are a Command Economy, so when their leadership declares that by 2030, 90% of the Chinese healthcare market will be Chinese, they will probably get there. Interestingly, rather than making it simply easier for Chinese companies to get products to market (which in the past has resulted in outdated products), instead, they are targetting the most innovative companies, and accelerating approvals (the US does this, its called De Novo approvals, UK is starting to do this). One rule; companies cannot be working with foreign companies. They want 100% Chinese solutions (frankly, in healthcare, device and drug efficacy is very population dependant, eg, breast cancer etiology in Europe and US is very different from China, Japan). The result is some genuinely interesting solutions being developed.

Without a healthy academic sector, you won't have innovation in industry. Its the seed for those idea. Your simplistic reading of that report fails to understand anything about scientific research. Likely you've never worked in the area.

These days, I am out of the lab. I am a director of research, 6 figure London salary, doing ok, and advising industry, and government, where to put their money with respect to healthcare. Yes, digital therapeutics are there, but we are also looking at synthetic organs etc. What Pharma is scared of at the moment is neuro-implants, devices that can compensate for loss of function, eg dementia. Pharma can spend 15-20 years on a pipeline drug, and it fails in trials. Medtech can potentially field a device, 6-8 years, and it is derisked before the trials. That is enormously disruptive

In my 30 year career, I have covered the whole gamut; starting off in marine microbiology down in Antarctica, climate biogeochemistry in the Gulf of Mexico, microbial ecology in Ireland, infectious disease stand off detection during the GWOT, COVID pandemic advising, to identifying innovation in medtech, and most recently, unpicking the medtech supply chain as it shifts from efficiency to resilience (healthcare is going to get a LOT more expensive).

1 hour ago, TedG said:

A stark example: One study tracing 18 FDA-approved therapies found NIH funding for those drugs totaled $0.67 billion, while private sector funding totaled $44.3 billion — private funding outweighed public funding by roughly 66-to-1 for that group.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9440766/

You only bothered to read the abstract, and really failed to understand the paper.

The paper makes a legitimate case that private industry provides vastly more direct financing for the later stages of drug development, particularly clinical trials and regulatory approval. However, its methodology arguably understates the public sector's broader contribution because it primarily identifies public involvement through NIH funding that can be directly linked to patents and particular drug candidates. This favours contributions that are easily attributable and commercially identifiable, while excluding much of the public sector's upstream research: basic biology, disease mechanisms, target identification, experimental techniques, databases, scientific infrastructure and researcher training. Much of this research is deliberately published rather than patented, yet can be essential to the subsequent development of a commercial drug.

The paper also risks comparing fundamentally different types of investment. Private companies generally enter the process when there is a potentially commercially viable candidate and then spend enormous sums on optimisation, clinical trials and regulatory approval. Public research often operates much further upstream, creating a body of scientific knowledge from which numerous companies can subsequently draw. Consequently, measuring the private sector's expenditure on the successful candidates while measuring only patent-linked public expenditure can make the public contribution appear disproportionately small. Studies using a broader methodology—particularly by tracing NIH-funded scientific publications and the underlying biological targets—have found public research associated with essentially all recently approved drugs, suggesting that the public contribution is much larger when the scientific foundations rather than just patented products are considered.

There is also a causality problem with interpreting the paper's results. The fact that greater private investment is associated with a higher probability of approval does not necessarily mean that private investment itself explains the success: companies naturally invest more heavily in drug candidates they already consider promising. More fundamentally, the paper's $670 million of NIH funding versus $44.3 billion of private funding should be understood as a comparison of traceable, drug-specific financial inputs, not a comprehensive measure of each sector's contribution to innovation. The paper therefore provides useful evidence about who finances the expensive final stages of development, but is much less capable of answering the broader question of who created the scientific knowledge and reduced the technological uncertainty that made those investments possible.

In healthcare, industry really struggles with the idea of zoonotic diseases. These are infectious diseases that have crossed the species barrier. About 60% of infectious disease in humans started in another animal. Industry only funds when it can make them money, naturally. Sars-Cov-2 is an example of a threat agent that crossed the species barrier and affected us all. Money was thrown at the problem, and frankly, it wasn't industry then coming up with the solutions. Ebola. 2014-2015, there wasn't even an approved test to diagnose this. Even now, there are 3 tests on the market, maybe 5-6 in development. There is no money to be made in diagnosing and treating Ebola. When you laud industry, remember, healthcare is driven by people's pain, not consumer choice, At the heart is life and death, not moolah.

The private sector has a role of course. The entire Pharma sector was created because of D-Day; Fleming's discovery of penicillin was made into the war winning combat medical treatment thanks to two Aussie chemists working for an unfancied American chemical Merck (formally German until the US government forcibly nationalised the US arm after WW1).

If they can't hack it at the best universities in the world, which are all American, then the migrant academics are just second rate. Who would want to be at Calgary University when they can be at Harvard?

American academics moving to Canada, Australia, Europe. Their know-how remains within the Western sphere,

How come the well known Russophiles on this forum (generally those who seem to hate Canadians and Europeans) aren't highlighting the number of American scientists moving to China? It is a curious omission, almost like they hoped no one would notice, instead they prefer to focus on bashing kith and kin.

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/09/29/china/china-reverse-brain-drain-science-tech-competition-us-intl-hnk

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/09/science/nobel-winning-us-chemist-will-move-to-china-to-lead-ai-institute.html?unlocked_article_code=1.wlA.-_eU.hvAo1uhEkhDR&smid=nytcore-ios-share

https://e360.yale.edu/digest/china-europe-us-scientists

https://www.aau.edu/newsroom/us-cuts-science-create-opening-chinese-institutions

8 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

If they can't hack it at the best universities in the world, which are all American, then the migrant academics are just second rate. Who would want to be at Calgary University when they can be at Harvard?

^Another University of Life Graduate?

Those migrant academics you refer to;

“In 2024, temporary visa holders accounted for 61% of the doctoral degrees awarded by U.S. higher education institutions in computer and information sciences, 54% in engineering, and 52% in mathematics and statistics.”

https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsbsep20261/executive-summary?utm_source=chatgpt.com

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

In 2024, temporary visa holders accounted for 61% of the doctoral degrees

And all the really good ones would have applied to Princeton, Yale, Stanford, Harvard and MIT.

Only the second raters are going to Calgary university.

Trump is anti-science. Who wants to work in an environment where funding may be cut at any time to satisfy a political ideology?

America was pre-eminent in STEM subjects. That is no longer the case, the trend is down.

The scientists defecting to Canada are not middle of the road researchers. They are top line people, every one is a gain for Canada, and a loss for America.

51 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

If they can't hack it at the best universities in the world, which are all American, then the migrant academics are just second rate. Who would want to be at Calgary University when they can be at Harvard?

In case you have not noticed, Harvard has been in a prolonged dispute with the Trump administration, resulting in about $2.2 billion in federal funding being frozen, with Trump planning to sue Harvard for $1 billion for not acceding to his demands.

If I was an academic, I would be avoiding Harvard as a war zone.

doesnt much matter, we will own canada, liberate the people from their leftover colonial masters

11 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

The scientists defecting to Canada are not middle of the road researchers. They are top line people, every one is a gain for Canada, and a loss for America.

Oh really? Let's have a look at them, shall we?

One is Raymond Fisman. Before joining Boston University, Fisman was the Lambert Family Professor of Social Enterprise and co-director of the Social Enterprise Program at Columbia Business School. Translation, he's into business-climate change research. Definitely not a first tier academic. Also, he's not American, he's half Canadian to start with.

Crystal Kolden. From 2003 to 2006 Crystal Kolden served as a fire ecologist for the USDA Forest Service at their Washington Office. While doing this she would fight wildfires, and monitor for other fires when not fighting them. From 2004 to 2012 she was an associate research scientist at the Desert Research Institute in Reno, NV. Yes, clearly an Einstein in waiting.

Nah, these are definitely not first tier academics. Some of them are not even American, but Canadian.

Don't waste your Time-on-Earth doing research in Canada.

Canada does not spend on research.

Instead, move to China.

You don't need to learn Chinese, although you probably will choose to.

And, WHY are these upstart CANADIANS becoming so sensitive, these days.

The TRUTH about Research Funding, which is most important to researchers, is that Canada is not a good place to go, and so Canada is probably luring NOBODY, except maybe for Researchers such as ARDAY, when Cambridge will not take them.

I wonder if they included Prof Hinton.

NOTE: There is now a HUGE Bias in the Gemini model which favors couching responses that are favorable to Canada.

If you ask which is better USA, China, or Canada, or some other country in the world, there seems to be a huge bias favoring Canada.

The robot will not state the facts, outright. It will begin qualifying its results so that it seems Canada is...Still good, despite the bad numbers.

Gemini is very biased on this Topic.

11 hours ago, TedG said:

A stark example: One study tracing 18 FDA-approved therapies found NIH funding for those drugs totaled $0.67 billion, while private sector funding totaled $44.3 billion — private funding outweighed public funding by roughly 66-to-1 for that group.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9440766/

So NIH is much more cost effective......good to know.

11 hours ago, TedG said:

A 2019 Research America report found that in 2016, the private sector funded 67% of total U.S. medical and health R&D while the federal government supported 22%. So roughly two-thirds of the money comes from private industry, with government (mostly NIH) funding about a fifth, and the remainder from other sources (foundations, universities, etc.)

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9440766/

And?

9 hours ago, Cameroni said:

Oh really? Let's have a look at them, shall we?

One is Raymond Fisman. Before joining Boston University, Fisman was the Lambert Family Professor of Social Enterprise and co-director of the Social Enterprise Program at Columbia Business School. Translation, he's into business-climate change research. Definitely not a first tier academic. Also, he's not American, he's half Canadian to start with.

Crystal Kolden. From 2003 to 2006 Crystal Kolden served as a fire ecologist for the USDA Forest Service at their Washington Office. While doing this she would fight wildfires, and monitor for other fires when not fighting them. From 2004 to 2012 she was an associate research scientist at the Desert Research Institute in Reno, NV. Yes, clearly an Einstein in waiting.

Nah, these are definitely not first tier academics. Some of them are not even American, but Canadian.

In case you have not noticed, Canada has a lot of forests, and exports timber to the USA. Climate change and wildfires are real. Research into protecting such assets us sensible.

2 hours ago, Lacessit said:

In case you have not noticed, Canada has a lot of forests, and exports timber to the USA. Climate change and wildfires are real. Research into protecting such assets us sensible.

Indeed, so what we have here is a bunch of glorified fire fighters, climate researchers, third rate AI people (all the really good ones are at OpenAI) and yes the odd age research academic. Who mostly got hired by Manitoba University.

And many of them are Canadian, some are foreigners.

This is the "coup".

Hahahahaha....