In April 2025, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a stark warning regarding antibiotic-resistant bacteria, commonly known as “superbugs.” These germs, the CDC reported, are responsible for over 3 million infections annually in the United States, leading to approximately 48,000 fatalities each year. On a global scale, the situation is even more dire, with nearly 5 million deaths linked to these pathogens. Health experts caution that without immediate action, superbugs could become a leading cause of death, potentially surpassing cancer by 2050.
This alarming backdrop underscores the struggles faced by young American scientists, particularly those like Ian Morgan, a postdoctoral fellow at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Morgan, aged 33, is engaged in high-stakes research aimed at combating superbugs. However, the recent wave of federal funding cuts has severely impacted his work and future prospects. Under the Trump administration, NIH has seen billions in budget reductions, with nearly 8,000 grants canceled and over 1,000 NIH employees laid off. Morgan now faces the daunting reality of a hiring freeze that limits his ability to establish his own laboratory.
As a response to these challenges, Morgan has joined a new union representing young NIH researchers, which has grown to nearly 5,000 members. Together, they are advocating against what they perceive as an assault on American science. “We have a lot of really cool new innovations that could defeat the infections,” he stated, emphasizing the urgency of continuing research efforts.
The situation is not isolated to Morgan. Across the NIH and various universities, young scientists are experiencing similar setbacks due to funding constraints. According to Science magazine, the federal workforce lost more than 10,000 post-doctoral researchers last year, resulting in a staggering 11-to-1 ratio of departures to new hires. This brain drain has raised existential concerns about the future of American science, which has historically been a cornerstone of both the economy and global public health.
The NIH plays a pivotal role in advancing biomedical research, contributing to breakthroughs in cancer treatment, vaccinations, and infectious disease defenses. Without the NIH’s leadership, experts fear that the United States risks losing its status as the largest biomedical ecosystem globally. “The talent pool is developed by letting young people flourish among like-minded, excited scientists,” said John Prensner, a pediatric brain cancer doctor at the University of Michigan. “If that ceases, then that intellectual discovery will be planted in another country’s soil.”
One such scientist affected by these changes is Emma Bay Dickinson, a 27-year-old postgraduate researcher in infectious diseases. With aspirations to combat potential future pandemics, Dickinson has found her prospects dimmed by the funding cuts. “My classmates applying in the US were getting rejected,” she recalled, noting that many were informed of the uncertainties caused by budget reductions. Frustrated by the administration’s stance on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), Dickinson redirected her efforts abroad, ultimately securing a position in a prestigious program in Barcelona.
The exodus of young American scientists is becoming increasingly pronounced as universities in Europe, Australia, and Asia actively recruit these individuals, offering what some have termed “scientific asylum.” For instance, Aix-Marseille University has received a flood of applications from early-career researchers seeking opportunities outside the US.
Compounding the issue, the NIH has seen cuts to over 50 training programs aimed at nurturing the next generation of scientists. An anonymous NIH program officer described the impact of these cuts as detrimental, stating, “Trainees are the most vulnerable people in science. Now they are losing their minds with worry about what comes next.” The officer emphasized that such cuts create a snowball effect, jeopardizing the future of scientific innovation.
Additionally, the immigration policies enforced under the Trump administration have further limited the influx of international talent into US scientific labs. Last year, half of the Nobel Prize winners in science were immigrants, illustrating the significance of foreign researchers in driving innovation. Measures such as a $100,000 fee on new H-1B visa applications and restrictions on immigrant visa processing have made the US a less attractive destination for skilled scientists.
Jennifer Jones, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, remarked on the lasting damage to the international reputation of US science. “We are no longer attracting top talent from around the world,” she said, questioning why anyone would want to come to a country where deportation looms large.
In response to concerns raised by the scientific community, Emily Hilliard, press secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, asserted that the NIH is committed to rebuilding public trust and providing opportunities for early-career scientists. She described claims of a diminishing pipeline of young scientists as “baseless and intended to fearmonger.”
Despite these reassurances, many within the NIH remain apprehensive about the future. Jenna Norton, a program director at NIH, expressed surprise at the rapid changes since the administration took office. Following her placement on indefinite paid leave, Norton filed a whistleblower complaint alleging unlawful retaliation for criticizing the funding cuts. She remarked, “I was not expecting this administration to come at science as broadly and quickly as they have.”
The ramifications of these funding cuts extend beyond individual careers; they threaten the very foundation of the US economy. NIH funding supports basic biomedical research that leads to the development of new drugs and commercial innovations. A study from 2018 highlighted that all 210 new drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between 2010 and 2016 originated from NIH-funded research.
Economist Donna Ginther warned, “We are leaving discoveries on the table. Those discoveries are the ones that in 10, 20 years will contribute to economic growth, improved health, human longevity.” The current trajectory of American science raises critical questions about the sustainability of its future and the potential loss of invaluable contributions to global health and innovation.
