Canada Hires 48 Scholars Away From Top US Universities (nytimes.com) 195
Canada is recruiting 64 researchers to universities across the country (source paywalled; alternative source), including 48 from U.S. institutions such as Harvard, Yale, and MIT. The hires are backed by more than $364 million in government funding and are part of a broader effort to attract researchers in fields such as AI, climate science, and medicine. The New York Times reports: While scientists often shy away from political discourse, some are saying the Trump administration's assault on science is behind their departure. "I used to live in the country that I thought was the most enthusiastic about the prospects for science improving the human condition, of any country in the world," said Phillip Zamore, the chair of RNA Therapeutics Institute at the University of Massachusetts. "And I woke up one day and that wasn't true anymore." He has been recruited to McGill University in Montreal, which has also hired five other researchers, and will join the medical faculty. "If scientists don't stand up for truth, no one will," Dr. Zamore said.
The Canada-bound brain drain from U.S. institutions began last year as the Trump administration put forward policies that targeted foreign students, academic freedom and funding for equity-related programs. Kevin Hall, a nutrition scientist who left the U.S. National Institutes of Health last year, accusing federal officials of censoring his research on ultraprocessed foods, has been hired at the University of Ottawa. "While certain countries are cutting research and turning their back on academic freedom, we're doubling down on science," Melanie Joly, Canada's industry minister, told reporters at the announcement, in Vancouver, of the new university hiring. She billed it as the world's "largest talent attraction" project. The European Union has made a similar push. "Years from now, we will look back at today's announcement, and we will be able to seize the lasting impact of our choices," Ms. Joly said.
Unpredictable decisions about funding prompted Seth Guikema, a professor in civil and environmental engineering, who has specialized in natural hazards modeling at the University of Michigan, to look elsewhere. His work focuses on how climate hazards inequitably affect communities, and that work has become harder to fund, he said. "Every country sets its priorities in terms of what is going to get funded, and I think Canada has done a very good job of supporting research in areas that really matter to society," said Dr. Guikema, who will start at Western University in London, Ontario in January.
The Canada-bound brain drain from U.S. institutions began last year as the Trump administration put forward policies that targeted foreign students, academic freedom and funding for equity-related programs. Kevin Hall, a nutrition scientist who left the U.S. National Institutes of Health last year, accusing federal officials of censoring his research on ultraprocessed foods, has been hired at the University of Ottawa. "While certain countries are cutting research and turning their back on academic freedom, we're doubling down on science," Melanie Joly, Canada's industry minister, told reporters at the announcement, in Vancouver, of the new university hiring. She billed it as the world's "largest talent attraction" project. The European Union has made a similar push. "Years from now, we will look back at today's announcement, and we will be able to seize the lasting impact of our choices," Ms. Joly said.
Unpredictable decisions about funding prompted Seth Guikema, a professor in civil and environmental engineering, who has specialized in natural hazards modeling at the University of Michigan, to look elsewhere. His work focuses on how climate hazards inequitably affect communities, and that work has become harder to fund, he said. "Every country sets its priorities in terms of what is going to get funded, and I think Canada has done a very good job of supporting research in areas that really matter to society," said Dr. Guikema, who will start at Western University in London, Ontario in January.
The long-term impact of this on the US (Score:5, Informative)
The consequences go far beyond academia: basic scientific research is THE engine behind engineering, medicine, and industry. The US has enjoyed amazing economic success since WW II because it recognized that there's no better investment not just in terms of monetary ROI, but societal ROI. And now it's being systematically destroyed by one psychotic senile moron who couldn't even name the planets or tell you the difference between a bacteria and a virus.
This is both maddening and depressing. The US spent 75 years becoming one of the best, if not the best, scientific countries in the world and now, in just a few short years, it's rapidly undoing much of that.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The US spent 75 years becoming one of the best, if not the best, scientific countries in the world and now, in just a few short years, it's rapidly undoing much of that.
The Trump administration has been an anathema to science for reasons which I fail to comprehend. Can someone explain why this is? Is this just something fascist autocrats do?
Re:The long-term impact of this on the US (Score:5, Insightful)
Because scientists follow the evidence to draw conclusions, they sometimes say things that contradict the ideology. Climate change is a good example of this.
Re: (Score:2)
Not least of which is the idea that having the letters PhD after your name qualifies you to opine on $current_events with unquestioned solomonic wisdom regardless of whether you have any expertise in the subject or whether your next grant is riding on a particular direction of public opinion.
Damn right, that privilege should rest solely on people with slashdot accounts.
Re: The long-term impact of this on the US (Score:4, Interesting)
Sure scientists are fallible, but nonetheless it still grinds forwards to the truth about reality. And that is now the anathema to the right where ideology trumps reality. See, for example, the rights general opinion on binary "biological sex" which appears to miss out on all sorts of interesting bits of reality like XY-CAIS, XXXY mosaicism, Swyer syndrome and so many more.
You can kill Lysenko's opponents but you can't make Lysenkoism reality.
Re: (Score:3)
Scientists are fallible humans the way everyone else is. And my personal observation is that academic science is a magnet for several particular human failings.
It is also a sanctuary that supports many people with unique talents, and reduces distraction from profit-motives. Things get done at academic institutions that couldn't be done elsewhere. And they are much more cost-effective at research than most overhead-burdened companies.
At its best, the intentionally adversarial nature of the scientific process (in experiment, nature is your adversary; in publication your peers are your adversary) separates the wheat from the chaff.
Nature is not an adversary, it is the thing being studied by science. Nor are your peers adversaries. They're more like a "loyal opposition." The real adversary is ignorance.
At its worst (when money and personal reputation and prestige are on the line), it's far easier to go along to get along, get the grant, get the publication, get the recommendation letter. And bad ideas fester.
That's not academic science. That's politics. Which takes pl
Re:The long-term impact of this on the US (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The long-term impact of this on the US (Score:5, Insightful)
Thus, autocrats dislike research, which enables that change.
Yes: you can't control research: you can murder Lysenko's opponent but you can't make him right and in a fight between ideology and reality, reality wind eventually. Autocracy is all about control, and research is the anathema to that. It may often tell you thing that are directly contradictory to deeply held beliefs.
I mean just look at how the "biological sex" crowd respond to things like XY-CAIS, XY/XX mosaic chimerism, 46XX DSD, Swyer syndrome, and so on.
Re: The long-term impact of this on the US (Score:2)
The stereotypical luddite wants all people to benefit from advances in technology.
Before you use a word, look it up.
Re: (Score:2)
Turns out current usage != etymology (and no, a stereotypical luddite is not the same as a historical Luddite).
By all means, celebrate ignorance. I note you skipped over the #1 definition. Typical coward shit. You're afraid of knowledge.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The long-term impact of this on the US (Score:5, Insightful)
There has been a long running pattern where the think tanks that supply policy to the GOP have seen various sciences as threats to their economic beliefs.
Climate change is a big one. Physics doesn't *care* if the economy is more efficient if we ignore externalities. Cancer doesn't *care* if killing it with chemotherapy might require spending some tax dollars. Covid never cared if social distancing meant that some hours ought be spent away from the office.
Then you've got the religion issue. Christianity, Judaism, Islam etc as a whole has been reasonably effective in the past 100 years of surviving challenges from science by simply acknowledging the science. The catholic church and most "adult" denominations consider evolution just how god did it (Pope John Paul famously advised Steven Hawkings to not enquire before the big bang, because THAT was gods private time lol.) And that whole 6000 years ago thing? Metaphorical or something. But thats not the flavor of christianity thats noisiest in the world of GOP thinktanks. THOSE people see science as a direct threat to their religion because fundamentalism thinks christianity is at threat from science saying "Hey the world is not a 6000 year old flat plane where jesus rode a dinosaur around the place".
Which is a real problem for our children who have to put up with this shit if it starts turning up in their text books.
Re:The long-term impact of this on the US (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it's the other way round. The fundamentalist branding explicitly engineered their religious teachings to become anti-science. Not because science went against any religion but just to take control. You'll note they also despise the law, education and fairness. Hypocrisy is the name of the game.
And the reason for that is the Israel Lobby. Truth and equality both hurt their cause of annihilation of Palestine. But also bonus control of the biggest military and the geopolitical leverage that begets. ie: Immunity for war crimes. The so-called Military Industrial Complex is really a euphemism.
Re: (Score:2)
Misery is easy.
Re: The long-term impact of this on the US (Score:2)
The Trump administration has been an anathema to science for reasons which I fail to comprehend. Can someone explain why this is? Is this just something fascist autocrats do?
I believe if you boil it down, binary thinking explains a lot. Something is true or false. Good or bad in their mind. So, science? Good or bad? Well, it is complicated and that is a wrong answer. It can only be good or bad! So, too much annoyances because of science? Cholesterol is bad, I need a diet. Oh... news article says that high Cholesterol is not necessarily bad(it is complicated) Who does this dokter think he is, putting me on a diet when he knows shit! A bit more of these things and the bit flips. Science = bad. Their thinking becomes limited to simple truths. Science bad, American values good, immigrants bad, ... It is the only thing that holds if you think binary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"As people do better, they start voting like Republicans—unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thing" - Republican strategist Karl Rove
"It is a well known fact that reality has liberal bias." - Stephen Colbert
"The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant" - Maximilien de Robespierre
Not just the fascist ones.
https://www.harvardmagazine. [harvardmagazine.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Is this just something fascist autocrats do?
Fascism doesn't necessarily try to burn down science; Hitler did eject (and murder) a lot of Jewish scientists for being Jewish, but his regime was generally quite pro-science otherwise. Other autocratic regimes were also quite pro-science, once established. The USSR poured a lot of money into science. Not as much as the US but that was mostly because the USSR didn't have as much money to pour.
The regimes that reject science are populists and autocrats who are just establishing their power. Populism i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
When your overriding primary goal is snatching money and power, and science is providing reasons why that's not a good idea (stop burning so much fossil fuels which make hundreds of billions of $, stop giving healthcare or wage relief to people which expensively subtracts from the loot you can snatch, ...) then snuffing science becomes a secondary mandate. - damn, ended up under the wrong post.
Re: The long-term impact of this on the US (Score:2)
Re:The long-term impact of this on the US (Score:4, Informative)
every study anywhere shows that an education typically leads a majority of people away from the republican party.
Interestingly, that is only a recent trend. Until 30 years ago, more educated people tended to vote Republican, and the Democrats were supported by the working class. That has flipped, especially since Obama in 2008. The Republic party has shifted it even further since you-know-who in 2016.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Someone upvoted this shit?
Re:The long-term impact of this on the US (Score:5, Insightful)
They're certainly trying. I was listening to an exoplanets researcher the other day (in response to "How are scientists adjusting the way they work during the Trump administration?" [theconversation.com]) grumble about how they're afraid to use the phrase "diversity of exoplanets" in their work because of a (well-grounded) fear that having the word "diversity" will get their paper flagged for rejection. This sort of environment is toxic.
(My favourite response was "Spell it 'divers' and throw in the occasional 'thou art' and 'exeunt' " ;) )
Re: The long-term impact of this on the US (Score:2, Interesting)
As someone who's been in and around American academia for close to 25 years, I can say with certainty that a large element of American academia absolutely earned its place in the doghouse.
Years and years of quiet ascent to this shit:
https://www.newsweek.com/smith... [newsweek.com]
will grate on you too. Twenty plus years ago almost every announcement for a grant or fellowship application in my university was followed up with "women and minorities especially encouraged to apply" and not too long ago my wife (both a woman an
Re: The long-term impact of this on the US (Score:5, Insightful)
"I had to do a little extra paperwork so I helped elect a lawless, corrupt fascist leader and had to install an anti-vax monster man as head of HHS and an immoral incompetent drunkard at the DoD as well as several dozen out of touch billionaires in the cabinet who will proceed to fuck up every trade relationship across the globe and involve us into a foreign war quagmire while they brutalize American cities with lawless secret police while they engage in the worst type of DEI I claim to be against"
Way to go. Cannot wait for Woke 2.0 to make you all feel like you'll pine for the halcyon days of 2014.
Re: (Score:3)
I suspect you were just asked to be nice, and through a combination of spectrum OCD and insufficient cognitive therapy, you decided somehow you were being asked to do something wrong.
So you helped elect an ignorant sociopath. Congrats on that. Maybe you should have attended more of those cognitive therapy sessions.
Re: The long-term impact of this on the US (Score:5, Insightful)
First you're complaining about your relatives receiving too little disability payments, and one period later you're using "Marxist" as an insult. Apparently America does have an education problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Competing for what's a harder issue to deal with is fucking stupid when all need help. The people in your family clearly have a very hard life. But I don't understand why you leap from that to somewhat attaching trans folks. If it were so easy to be trans, they wouldn't have record suicide rates and a whole assortment of mental health issues. There is no need to belittle other people's needs, and there is no merit to it either.
Re: (Score:2)
It was a pretty ignorant comment, but I'm going to play Devil's Advocate on their behalf. I'm very much in the Ezra Klein school on this. People like Seven Spirals need help, but their experience with the US government's provision of help has been with a system that doesn't work. That makes you jump through hoops, waste time, and demeans you to get scraps of assistance and tries to get people to fall through the cracks - often those who need it the most (those with mental health problems, health issues, t
Re: The long-term impact of this on the US (Score:4, Insightful)
You were mad that efforts were being made to make up for prejudicial treatment that you have benefited from and now you want to cry about it here and get other people to comisserate with you over it. You proved exactly how necessary such efforts are with your crybaby reaction.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's put the motivation aside for a minute. Have you asked yourself "at what cost"?
I don't know about you, personally I have never voted for someone I fully agreed with on every issue. Voting is more of a "lesser of two evils" situation. Are you really fine with the whole descent into fascism, rampant corruption, degradation of public health, nepotism, degradations of cost of living, etc? Is it all a fair price to pay for whatever you perceive the benefit to be?
Re: The long-term impact of this on the US (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh come on, the Iran war is going to end soon, it will be followed by some negotiations which will break down, at that point the counter will reset and there will be a new Iran war (totally unrelated to the previous two).
The Iran wars will end when Benji Netanyahu says so, and that is not about to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
We're less than a year into Iran, calling it 'endless' is really premature
Is it premature to call it unnecessary and with no clear stated goal or benefit for the US?
Is it premature to remind you that Trump campaigned on "no more wars"?
In case that helps: I'm not part of the "same people" you mention, I have not done what you describe.
Re: (Score:3)
You realize that more Patriots were used during the first three days of the Iran war than were sent to Ukraine total across four years of war, right?
They have absolutely zero spending discipline. For example, they've been treating $50M Reapers basically as disposable munitions, with a quarter of the entire US fleet having been lost already.
Re: (Score:2)
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer
Re: (Score:2)
See, you give your American-ness away immediately.
Free professional troll tip you nutsack, if you're gonna larp as a non-American don't act so weirdly specific about US culture wall bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Well if you are in fact non-American than that is even somehow more pathetic and cringe so you know, take your pick.
Re:except we see who you cheer... (Score:4, Informative)
What is this s***?
Do you know how many non-W players there have been in the WNBA? Want to take a guess?
Here's a clue, the number is an integer less than one.
Re: The long-term impact of this on the US (Score:4, Insightful)
Here you are crying about Marxism again while also being a person who wants your relatives to get more free money. Shouldn't your family be paying for that if you're so against collectivism? You don't have beliefs, only arguments, so why should anyone care about your emotional appeals?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the right cheering Lindsay Clancy for killing her 3 kids
It's not the left either. Those who support Lindsay Clancy are not doing so because they're cool with her allegedly killing her 3 kids. They're trying to draw attention to the fact that she did not receive help for her severe postpardum psychosis despite begging for it.
It wasn't the right coming out cheering in support for Karmelo Anthony killing that white guy.
Again, it's not the left either. Those who support Karmelo Anthony do so because they think he acted in self-defense, after being bullied and confonted physically.
Re: (Score:2)
And you still let them vote.
Re: (Score:2)
For sure keep it up, this admin is definitely pushing the issue:
New Survey Finds Strong Majorities of Americans – Including Nearly All Major Religious Groups – Support Nondiscrimination Protections for LGBTQ People [prri.org]
Turns out American's don't like the government targetting minorities with the jackboots of government power.
"Don't tread on me, tread on them!" isn't very American after all.
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile in reality the vast majority of immigrants to the US are fucking Christians you absolute goddamn nutsacks.
Quick quick, go ask Grok to back you up and when that fails go search some of those white nationalist accounts you are so fond of for some more bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
2017 lol
Re: (Score:2)
I get aroused by cartoon women you pervert.
Also unlike Republicans my side has never caused $3 million to the US Capitol Building.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait... you're going to the National Museum of African American History and Culture (founded in 2003, signed into law by George W. Bush) and you're shocked that there was - somewhere in the 400k square foot building - a chart of stereotypes about white people next to a chart of stereotypes about black people?
Re: (Score:2)
You can find the same information from other sources, if you're actually interested in facts instead of ad hominems.
To reiterate: The Trump administration intervened on behalf of a racist, and intervened against someone teaching science accurately.
They introduced ideology into institutions and science, i.e. exactly what you claim to be against.
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer that the institutions I'm paying for in the real world teach them skills which are useful in it and no ideology that has no relation to reality.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
"It isn't a "concept" that America is still a world leader in science. It is fact."
True and you'll be modded down for it on this chinese propaganda mill.
Re: The long-term impact of this on the US (Score:2)
To maggots anyone not on their party line is wrong. Too bad that party line is an unprotected signal chat.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
massive target of systemic fraud massively skewed towards one particular political ideology that allowed it.
Republicans
while pointing the finger at "autocrats" wanting to question the status quo?
Because Republicans are 100% bad faith about everything. They are *lying* and you are a fool for believing them. An absolute joke.
DEI administration under Dumb and Dumber, circa 2020 - 2024.
Absolute cope and that's why you won't sign your name to these absolute dumfuck words because you know you are lying for other liars. What a dope. We are led by dopes and the dopes like you who support it. Fucking dopey fucks.
Re: The long-term impact of this on the US (Score:3)
Re:The long-term impact of this on the US (Score:5, Insightful)
And now it's being systematically destroyed by one psychotic senile moron
Afraid to say it's not. Not not being destroyed. Not by one psychopathic senile moron. I mean he is, certainly, but he still has an approval rating of 34%. That's about 70 million complete morons or so. You have about 34%of the population cheering him on.
Re:The long-term impact of this on the US (Score:5, Insightful)
I know right? So why did 70 million people vote for a person who promised no new wars, while an international agreement that was preventing Iran from having nukes was in place?
One of the first things Trump did was make it easier for Iran to get nukes by tearing up the protections in place. The second thing he did was legitimise their reason for wanting nukes. If your reasoning is the only reason, then there's 70million fucking stupid people in the USA.
Re: (Score:3)
If your reasoning is the only reason, then there's 70million fucking stupid people in the USA.
You forgot to count the eligible nonvoters. They are also fucking stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Then again, there is the little-remembered bit of Eisenhower's farewell address.
https://www.archives.gov/miles... [archives.gov]
Immediately after his (much repeated) warning about the dangers of the military-industrial complex, he them went on:
Re: (Score:3)
After the past 10 years, please please PLEASE put the "scientific-technological elite" back in charge.
If this admin is the alternative you are making the case for technocratic, ivory tower folks to run the nation because the alternative is corrupt incompetent kakistocracy.
You lot could have elected Nikki Haley and had maybe at least one leg to stand on but you chose blind revanchism and ignorance-as-a-virtue.
Re: (Score:2)
I tried! Maybe if more of you understood you can switch fucking parties for the primaries, more Democrats would of jumped over to Republican and voted for Nikki. I flip back and forth between D and R because sometimes you have to vote against someone before they reach the nationals. So yes, I became a Republican to vote against Trump.
I'm imaging they didn't because they were afraid Nikki might win, but no way Trump could win again.
Yeah, how did that work out again?
I don't really care though (Score:2)
Problem is we have fundamentally broken the economy for people that work for a living. When you completely break that social order then it doesn't matter and nothing matters.
When literally all of the benefits of the future go straight to the top and stay there and it never trickles down then it just doesn't matter if the work is done in Canada or if the work is done in america. I suppose it sucks when the work hasn't done at all bu
Re: (Score:2)
The US has enjoyed amazing economic success since WW II because it recognized that there's no better investment not just in terms of monetary ROI, but societal ROI.
And the ROI is really, really impressive. Each dollar in the NIH budget gets returned as about 5 (depending on the study) in increased GDP. To my knowledge, there is no other billion-dollar scale investment that has consistent, long-term returns like that.
Congress knows this fact. They commissioned many of the studies showing it. It is difficult to believe the Executive Branch is not aware of it. If we really wanted to be America First, rather than reducing the NIH budget, we'd be promoting another run
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. These are people you cannot generate or replace. You can either get some of the very limited and irreplaceable supply the human race has or you do not. Driving them away is about the most abysmally stupid thing you can do.
On the other hand, if you are planning to establish an anti-Science theocracy where people are malnourished, sick and uneducated and the only "fun" to be had is prayer, that is exactly the way to do it. Of course, if it fails, you are just getting a completely failed state and eve
Re: (Score:2)
The US spent 75 years becoming one of the best, if not the best, scientific countries in the world and now, in just a few short years, it's rapidly undoing much of that.
I wholeheartedly agree with everything you said, except the "just a few short years". It's both easy and appropriate to blame this on Trump - and lord knows there's LOTS go blame him for - but hacking away at the roots of the Tree of Knowledge goes a lot farther back.
Probably far from first, but a convenient many-decades-old place to start: tobacco companies and oil companies hid the results of the science which proved the damage their products were causing. Hiding scientific results is the first step on th
Re: The long-term impact of this on the US (Score:2)
One of the iron laws of academia is that a grad student is never hired by the institution that grants their PhD. If anything, this helps to make it easier for top-tier institutions to hire back the grad students that were working under these professors when they graduate.
Re: (Score:2)
When your overriding primary goal is snatching money and power, and science is providing reasons why that's not a good idea (stop burning so much fossil fuels which make hundreds of billions of $, stop giving healthcare or wage relief to people which expensively subtracts from the loot you can snatch, ...) then snuffing science becomes a secondary mandate.
Re: (Score:2)
hah! You thought I was talking about this [cnn.com].
Putin (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Putin (Score:2)
Re: Putin (Score:2)
Re: Putin (Score:4, Informative)
Re: Putin (Score:2)
Re: Putin (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm sure you'd be welcome if you ever wanted to - you're already ideologically highly aligned (and never really were with the US...) :) Honestly, economically and geopolitically it'd be a very strong alliance for both parties, as what Canada offers vs. what it needs is a good match for what the EU offers vs. what it needs. Though admittedly both parties need to rearm fast - but the EU has a lot more resources to do that than Canada has on its own. Canada has raw materials, EU needs them. Canadian automakers/parts suppliers need an alternative market, EU can provide it, etc.
Shifting eastward wouldn't be frictionless - for example, your oil infrastructure is designed to send it south, not to ports that can export it to the east, and European refineries would need to set up to process it, for example. But it's pretty clear that the current status quo can no longer be relied on, as the US is intent on extortion.
Re: Putin (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
BE already is in the EU. They are one of the OG members. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Cheapest Victory Putin ever got.
$6 million each (Score:3, Insightful)
The RNA medical researchers will be a loss. But climate change inequality researchers? Most Americans will be glad to see the back of them.
Re: $6 million each (Score:2)
Re:$6 million each (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah self-centred self-righteous arseholes just hate being called out as self-centred self-righteous arseholes because it means they need to put effort into trying to ignore their self-centred self-righteousness. The easiest way of doing that is for them to cut funding to researchers showing them they are self-centred self-righteous arseholes.
I'm not surprised most Americans are glad to see the back of any researchers pointing this out.
Re: (Score:2)
Look into a mirror and repeat that.
Re: (Score:3)
Weird response. He's got it nailed. The inequity of climate change matters and the only reason Americans don't want to hear about it is that we've created both the climate change and the inequity, usually at gunpoint.
Re: (Score:2)
Many (!) Americans are too dumb and uneducated to see reality. Your point is?
Difference in strategy (Score:4, Interesting)
Canada is playing the long game. Trump has the attention span of a gnat with ADHD.
Re: (Score:2)
Canada has a 5 year election cycle. Long compared to USA I guess, but...
Hey maybe they can do something crazy (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
In the discussion at hand, that is a nonsense comment. This is about hiring research scientists away from still very cushy positions. That only works because these people expect to get restricted in their work and they can see the crash that is coming. This has NO connection at all to undergrad education.
Re: (Score:2)
Numbers without percentages (Score:3)
Obviously NYT is just about narrative construction but it would be nice to know some figures like:
* what is that in percentage of researchers?
* and grants
* how many are typical in a year?
* what is the net in each direction for this time period?
* and for a typical year
I happen to know rwo researchers who got a position in Canada and several Canadians who got positions at US schools. That just seems normal from my limited perspective but maybe it's just because I feed them Molson and poutine so they keep coming around.
Remember, numbers given without percentages and percentages given withouts without numbers are always propaganda.
This has been your Defense against the Dark Arts class for today. Do your homework.
Re: (Score:3)
No surprise (Score:2)
This always happens before the big crash. Because people like that can see the crash coming.
How large are their peer groups? (Score:2)
What other numbers make that 48 impressive or otherwise?
I wonder ... (Score:2)
"His work focuses on how climate hazards inequitably affect communities, and that work has become harder to fund, he said."
I hope they like the snow (Score:2)
climate change may not be happening fast enough
That sucking sound (Score:2)
Top Non-US researchers are also leaving (Score:2)
Canada almost certainly loses more academics to US (Score:2)
Not mentioned:
Canada has an economy that has performed *FAR* worse than the US, especially over the past 15 years. Inflation is far higher, taxes are far higher, housing prices are out of control, productivity is stagnant. Canada over the past 20-25 years or so has become increasingly anti-liberty, anti-capitalist, anti-freedom, and anti-free speech.
So, many Canadians have moved to the United States. Including scholars. Far in excess of any Americans moving to Canada.
And a group of 48 moving from the US
Re:Seeya (Score:5, Informative)
Haven't worked in academia, have you. I'll put it in terms you might understand. Suppose there is coach of university basketball team. The school and the coach have a great reputation of attracting the best up and coming athletes. Then the school Administration decides to cut the basketball's program funding so that it will no will no longer have great facilities, the travel budget is reduced so the school cannot recruit like it used to. The star player decides to finish out his eligibility at another university. Several of his friends decide they'd also like to transfer because of the situation and that the school did nothing to keep the star.
Now, the coach can expect the basketball program to deteriorate because word gets around and high school players learn that tjhe school won't support the basketball team very well.
So the coach goes to the Administration and explains how they are destroying the basketball program. Unfortunately for the coach, the Administration is run by you who understands nothing about college athletics or basketball. You tell the coach: "There is probably a long list of players eager to fill the vacated roles and a long tail of high school players who will follow them."
Now you have destroyed the basketball program. I might add your attitude is what got the U.S. into the current predicament with respect to qualified individuals to run anything. DoD is being destroyed by the same boneheaded thinking. Who the hell needs expertise, there's always a long list of unqualified people willing to step up and screw up.
Re: (Score:2)
That explanation is still too complex for the MAGA cretins to understand.
Re: (Score:3)
So do we. If you don't want your basic science researchers, we'll take all you've got, thanks!
Re: (Score:2)