Originally published in Jornal da Unicamp. Click here to access the original version.
“Brazil has launched an unprecedented program for science, technology, and innovation: attracting foreign scientists of any age and at any stage of their careers to conduct research at Brazilian institutions. The target audience is researchers from the United States.
Our research funding agencies, universities, and research centers recognized the opportunity and, in an integrated action, launched, together with renowned institutions in the United States, the public call Come Over Researchers (Core), part of a larger set of talent attraction initiatives that some countries have collectively launched targeting the United States: Move Away, Go Abroad (Maga).”
The news above, as well as the title of this text, are false. But they could be true. The opportunity exists.
A similar program, but aimed at attracting Brazilians abroad, was launched by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) in 2024, with three components:
- Attracting and retaining talent (to “repatriate” Brazilian researchers abroad as well as retain researchers who completed their training abroad in recent years), which received about 1,600 proposals (the call initially expected to contract up to 1,000 projects in this component);
- Support for networked projects with Brazilian researchers abroad (to encourage knowledge exchange between researchers and research groups in Brazil and Brazilian researchers living abroad; more than 600 proposals were approved);
- Economic subsidies for innovation (a call conducted by the Brazilian Funding Authority for Studies and Projects—Finep—to provide resources for Brazilian companies to hire researchers and/or Brazilian professionals currently living abroad—preliminary results show only three company proposals; more may follow).
Three observations about the initial results of these calls for proposals:
a) Many people are interested in returning to Brazil, confirming studies on the Brazilian scientific diaspora conducted, among others, by researcher Ana Maria Carneiro and her team [1];
b) The formation of networks with Brazilians abroad should receive a boost from this call for projects;
c) Few companies are interested in attracting researchers from abroad to conduct research in Brazil.
Once again, the country demonstrates strength in academic research and weakness in research for innovation. This has always been the case, despite efforts to balance these two sides of the research world.
In any case, the “repatriation” of researchers seems to be an interesting way to strengthen and expand the reach of research in the country.
The three components of the Conhecimento Brasil (Knowledge Brazil) program complement each other: bringing people back is important, but collaborating with those who remain abroad is too; even better would be if companies got involved more actively.
The lack of business interest may be due to several reasons, which, grouped together, could be defined as follows: they do not participate in the call because they do not need more researchers; they do not participate because it is not worthwhile (costs, other ways of obtaining researchers, etc.). Given the characteristics of the call, the first explanation seems the most convincing.
That said, and returning now to the imagined Core call from the imagined Maga program, let’s look at what is at stake.
Since the 47th president of the United States took office on January 20, 2025, not a day has passed without news of budget cuts, layoffs, and/or bans on research topics in that country. Some news reports from early 2025, listed by ChatGPT after three different prompts, include:
- Johns Hopkins Slashes More Than 2,000 Jobs Due to USAID Cuts. The cuts at the university’s global health affiliate, medical school, and public health school follow the loss of $800 million in USAID grants;
- At the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a cap was introduced on indirect cost reimbursements at 15%, down from previous rates ranging between 30% and 70%. This reduction threatens funding for essential research infrastructure and support services;
- There was a suspension of grant funding at the National Science Foundation (NSF), leading to financial uncertainties for ongoing research projects. Additionally, the NSF announced layoffs affecting 25% to 50% of its workforce, with 168 employees terminated in February 2025;
- At the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), approximately 880 employees, or 5% of the workforce, were laid off, impacting various scientific and environmental programs;
- Significant data resources from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), such as the Social Vulnerability Index and Environmental Justice Index, were removed from public access, hindering research and public health initiatives.
With special attention, the federal government determined on the president’s inauguration day (Executive Order 14151) the banning of research programs aimed at—or involving—Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). The title of the executive order reads: “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing.” The measure mandates the suspension of actions, policies, and mandates within the federal government related to DEI.
Universities and research centers are stunned by the order, starting with not knowing what constitutes and what does not constitute an action, program, or policy that falls under DEI.
After all, what should be included? Will public health research requiring studies on treatments across different races and genders be banned? Will research on consumer cohort behavior be prohibited? Will measures to include marginalized populations in consumer markets no longer be allowed?
Here, two news items—one from the education sector and one from health—give some clues:
- The U.S. Department of Education has taken action to eliminate DEI initiatives, including removing references to them in public communications and within its workforce, aligning with the administration’s commitment to end such programs;
- The NIH is terminating several active research grants related to studies involving LGBTQ+ issues, gender identity, and DEI, affecting ongoing research and associated personnel.
As if reality could be erased by decree. A classic autocratic move: banning what is disliked so that it is no longer seen or discussed.
Are we witnessing a new McCarthyism, like the one that harassed, persecuted, and ruined the lives of professionals—especially actors, journalists, and, of course, scientists? Only time will tell.
The ongoing dismantling also targets technological innovation policies. In his address to Congress this March 2025, Donald Trump called for the repeal of the CHIPS and Science Act, a package of over $50 billion created through a bipartisan agreement in 2022 to boost domestic semiconductor production and fund research in various STEM fields (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). According to the NSF, if fully funded, the law would have doubled the agency’s budget by 2027.
The current Republican administration seems to believe that reversing competitiveness loss through trade tariffs, cutting research and innovation funding, and banning research topics is a show of strength. It looks more like a sign of decline. The decline of an empire, for three simultaneous reasons whose whole is greater than the sum of its parts: admitting the loss of competitiveness in much of its industry and rushing to supposedly protect it, rejecting the crucial role of the state in scientific and technological development that supports competitiveness, and, to make matters worse, suppressing the very foundation of it all—knowledge advancement.
Could this all be politically calculated while, in reality, the U.S. remains the leader in what truly matters? Perhaps. No one can say. Again, only time will tell.
However, what a colleague—a professor and director at a major university in Washington—wrote to me this week suggests that the idea of a calculated attack is weak:
“I have seen all Presidents since Ronald Reagan. This situation cannot be compared. We live the worst moments of the country in living memory.”
Trying to find a positive side to all this, I return to the fake news at the beginning of this text.
Perhaps the imagined Core public call could become a reality.
Why not?
[1] CARNEIRO, A. M.; et al. Brazilian Science, Technology, and Innovation Diaspora: Panorama, Self-Organized Initiatives, and Engagement Policies. IDEIAS (UNICAMP), v. 11, p. 1-29, 2020.