> Why not?

Truth is that the work and complexity is not that divorced. Honestly, the work in academia felt harder, though more fulfilling. Industry work hasn't made me have to really think deeply. If anything, I've heard most of my coworkers (at multiple companies) say something along the lines of "we have to move so fast that there's no time to think." Given that (multiple) managers tell me I'm "too slow" just because I'm not producing tons of lines of code (I'm neck and neck with everyone on milestones), I understand what they're talking about. Industry has a working mode of "do first, think second" while academia often thinks first. The reason is really because it is a lot cheaper to think first.

[0] It works enough for some demo to some person

[1] One example is I beat a company's fancy giant transformer based image detector with a scrappy CNN that took only a few hours to train. They were excited for all of 1 day and then wouldn't let me do the same thing to the transformer model (which would have had a bigger impact). Fun fact, my boss also loved to tell me about how dumb academia is because they never do anything useful and how industry makes all the real advancements.

Biotech and academia have very different standards for data quality and reproducibility. Most of the biotech people I know view academic research as an interesting first draft at best.

Drug development is just a totally different game. The tools are the same but the difference between what the reviewers at your favorite high impact publication want and what the FDA wants are pretty different. People spend their whole careers getting good at the latter in the same way people get good at the former. I've seen people come from academia and thrive and I've also seen the struggle. Some people also go to school with the goal of doing drug development, which sometimes academic folks don't realize. - person who was good at microscope and ended up in early stage drug development ~10y

I can’t speak to this particular sector; however, I have found academics to lag 5-7y behind the realities of the business world I operate in.

Business moves incredibly fast; academia, not so much.

Because the results from an acedemic paper are not, ever, going to be injected into a customer's arm. Developing products for sale in the real world is very different than designing lab experiments.

Academics do have a reputation that way, but only the 100% safe, tenured ones. The majority of academics are required to have a strong level of communication just to get their grants accepted. Imagine if, on top of working your normal job at maximum efficiency, you then had to make a presentation to the government every year about why you and everyone that depends upon you deserves to eat, while the government you make the presentation to becomes increasingly antagonistic and detached.

There's quite a lot of people skills involved in surviving as an academic in today's environment. Imagine if you had to teach calculus to 150 random, uninterested teenagers (barely adults) every 12 weeks. There's some serious people skills involved in doing a good job at that (most people do actually try to teach well, I've known multiple people this year refused tenure based on rate-my-teacher ratings).

It's a different set of skills for sure, but being an academic isn't as socially challenged as the zeitgeist appears to believe.

Academic's, FTR, have to have a huge amount of people skills. Their job isn't just to discover, it's to share.

You cannot share (effectively) if you cannot communicate in a way that others can understand.

Further the entire ecosystem that academics rely on to get what they need to do for their research (grants, and other funding, resources, and so on) necessitate them to convince people who control those, who do not necessarily understand the purpose of the work

When interest rates are low, capital is willing to go to riskier enterprises like biotech in order to get a larger return compared to the alternatives.

When interest rates are high, capital shifts to yield-generating, interest-bearing investments. They give higher returns with less risk.

So basically the ROI of biotech becomes less competitive compared to alternatives. You have the same number of people/firms chasing a smaller supply of investment dollars.

how exactly did you jump to the conclusion that American ?citizen? taxpayes are propping these two people up financially? They are presumably both paying income tax in the United States as well, probably a lot of it based on his wife's profession.

I’m going to keep it vague beyond saying that I don’t have to worry about going bankrupt from healthcare.

Here’s evidence from 2025. 2026 has increased.

https://www.aau.edu/sites/default/files/Resources-American-S...

US citizen moves to Canada on a CUSMA visa:

  - 30-50% pay cut

  - points and lottery based immigration system that penalizes them for each year you age after 30

  - frequent unfavorable rule changes

  - fear of being trapped forever on a temporary visa and eventually sent back to the USA, poorer than their peers who stayed stateside.

  - huge pay raise

  - retire back home wealthier than their peers and still enjoy socialized healthcare.

Personally, I would go to Toronto. Decades ago I used to work for a Canadian company headquartered in Toronto and had development offices in the states. There was a project I needed to do with a distinguished engineer that required me to move to Toronto for a few months. I really liked it. TBH, there are very few cities in the US that I would say are on par with Toronto, and none are better. Now the Winters are brutal, but they're brutal where I'm from so that's not a dealbreaker for me.

For a country that has been a "brain magnet" for a good century, a "brain drain" might just be "talented people from wherever choosing to go somewhere else".

Case in point: an EE I know who is finishing his master's[1] is considering interesting proposals from solid (but not top tier, think Texas not Massachusetts) universities from the US, Germany and China. While he's afraid of the culture gap with China, it's clearly the one that has the more interesting things going on technically and the one he feels more excited about

[1]Engineering by itself is a bachelor's level degree here

Probably more that China is producing more new talent through education, and Chinese scientists and researchers moving back to China.

you wouldn't want citizenship anyway; safer to remain a foreigner while living/working there, even long-term

HK will give you right of abode which is almost as good as citizenship so long as you stay in HK. I suppose you could still be deported for high crimes or some such but that almost seems like the best case scenario if that happens.

Higher intangible quality of life, lower spending power.

There are a lot of QOL advantages to living in a less violent, less polarized, less cruelty-driven society that isn't actively trying to dismantle all of its institutions and destroy itself. Especially if you're one of those people who are in the crosshairs of jack-booted thugs and their cheerleaders.

But where on the planet are you going to go and escape that?

And yet despite their majority, Labor still seem reticent to make big changes of the sort people are asking for, and backpedal on their initiatives and promises all over the place.

God I hope Pauline and one nation are just a stupid blip and that poll that put them ahead is a mirage though. She's doing the same bullshit playbook as the UK and US - 'elites' are destroying Australia by driving immigration! Meanwhile the richest woman in Australia is in the background holding the marionette's strings.

The terms "expat" and "immigrant" are not synonyms. There is a material semantic distinction in American English.

Most Americans that live overseas tend to be expats rather than immigrants. Those two terms don't convey the same meaning.

I guess I think of "expat" as a possibly-temporary state where full assimilation is not the goal. American expats also pay American taxes unless they give up US citizenship.

Technically of course you are right.

americans pretending they aren't refugees by using the term expat is almost too ironic.

if you're living where you were born, how can you be an expat?

Most American ex-pats don't really understand that the thing that makes ex-pat life so attractive is that, for most of people's lives, being American in a foreign country has traditionally conferred a wide range of benefits (this is most clearly exemplified by the way Americans living in a foreign country refer to themselves as "ex-pats" not "immigrants"). The ex-pat solution assumes American exceptionalism as its foundation.

Historically Americans have benefited from income asymmetry and a fairly wide-spread desire by foreign nations not to cause too much legal trouble for US nationals abroad.

I have quite a few friends that do live, quite happily, abroad. But the common pattern for them is a.) fluency in the native language b.) historical association with the country c.) fairly large cash reserves so they can ignore any economic problems these countries are facing.

Most places have their own politics. What differs is how often they come up. As a foreigner you're usually spared the involvement in those discussions because people think you're not interested and don't want your outsider opinion anyway.

People also embed themselves in different communities when they move anywhere, even to a different city or state in the same country. It's a clean reset.

It doesn't always last forever. I know several people who tried to move somewhere, including internationally, when politics got heated in 2016. Most of them came back eventually with a realization that politics is everywhere, it's just a matter of how much you're embedded into the places it's discussed.

I (American) worked in Spain (Cáceres, Extremadura) ~2015-2017 in tech. It was a wonderful experience. Extremely talented, hard-working, and friendly co-workers. Great health-care and education systems. I think since then rising housing prices partially due to migration have become an issue, but it's a really, really nice place.

Apart from being the nexus of the current hot button issue - immigrants and housing costs.

"The grass is always greener", "the enemy you know", etc. etc.

Sounds like the locals are just racist then?

What are you talking about? They will move to Spain and be financially well off means they will be ignorant of local issues and live in a bubble? How did you make that stretch? Sure they may not be very political but that doesn't equate to living in a bubble. People choose to engage with politics at varying degrees, as is their right.

Isn't it enough to not having to look over your shoulder fearing you will be a statistic in the long list of atrocities being committed by this government? Having a good quality of life is something to be guilty about?!

That, interest payments, UFC fight night flyovers, ballrooms, wars, tax cuts.

I would go as far as to say that the only things getting reduced funding are education and science research, but that’s just a hunch.

reparations to Iran

Being friends with Israel and giving them billions of dollars annually was a dumb idea. There would’ve been no war between USA and Iran if there wasn’t such a close friendship with ridiculously acting Israel.

Don’t fret. Science had to confront issues before- the Catholic Church, the earlier Chinese dynasties, Nazis, etc.

Just have faith (in science, not sure about the U.S. - empires come and go)

I think we agree. I certainly agree with what you've written. You may not agree with my opinions, and that's fine.

In any case, you've inspired me to post the original reply I had composed for https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48575653 (the immediate parent to your comment), below. This is what I wanted to say, before then deciding to just be grateful for the sharing of the parent's perspective:

""" I'd frame AI as a plausible hypothesis engine, not as a working scientist (yet). I think AI can do some things that look like rational analysis (far better than many/most humans much of the time, perhaps), but I reserve that (most rare and prestigious and important) activity of actual science for humans too, when it counts, for sure.

I get the main article is about the very real "chaos/threat" of no funding, not the "chaos/threat" of AI-articles/"research" nor the "chaos/threat" of "real issues in the state of Science (before funding crises)".

IMO, the state of Science (before funding crises) could be, perhaps, inextricably (though not overtly) linked to the later/current chaos/threat of markedly reduced funding. No? Maybe it's not stated anywhere, but it seems oh so likely, reading between the lines.

If funding cuts, in the medium to long term, lead to a good thing (which would be the best we can now wish for -- and, after all, everything comes and goes in and out with the pendulum of time), it will be a much needed "reset" of science onto a more honest (and net knowledge-learning productive) model.

It (Science) was, arguably, already well by the wayside. Not just sort of expensive (though not very, compared with other budget items). But more importantly: inefficient (to put it nicely). And more importantly still: often (perhaps more often than not!) plain wrong. And that means, sadly: fairly/largely ineffective (degree depending on the domain). Which is the opposite of what is wanted. If you're going to do Science, it should at least be valid, or if it's not, it should be possible for those in their own field to tell that it is not. Else, it's kind of broken.

And if it doesn't serve it's purpose, what can you do but reboot. Reset. Just like a computer.

At least Science can be rebuilt. You just start doing it again (with what you have/can). With more rigor.

Maybe this reads like more of the same. But I don't think "being well funded" correlates well with "doing good science". (Only if the science is measured by the paychecks. Which is economics, not science.) """