saubeidl•3h
The first American 'scientific refugees' arrive in Francepolitico.eu
103 comments
  • maeln•3h

    > An early-career biological anthropologist said she was still awaiting contract details from AMU before putting pen to paper because of salary discrepancies, though she took comfort in the fact that the cost of living is lower in France — especially considering that education for her two children, who she said were eager to settle in Marseille, would be free.

    Researcher are severely under paid in France (young researcher often earn barely more than the minimum wage). I doubt she will find the salary to her expectation (though the very strong worker right, and 5 weeks vacation might compensate for that).

    In general, research is severely underfunded in France. That is nice that we try to make a gesture toward researcher under threat, but how many of them will we be able to keep when they realized the struggle of getting any funding for research here...

    • jltsiren•2h

      Researchers are underpaid and research is underfunded everywhere. Like most jobs that people find inherently interesting.

      I don't know about the specific situation in France. In general, Europe spends more on academic research than the US, both in absolute terms and as a fraction of GDP. However, it's easier to make an academic career in the US. Because the gap between academic and industry salaries is wider in the US, Americans are more likely to leave the academia after PhD. And because employment-based immigration is particularly difficult in the US, many would-be immigrants end up doing a PhD without any intention of staying in the academia. Which means you have less competition if you stay in the academia in the US.

    • jonathanlb•3h

      This is addressed in TFA:

      > [...] the fact there's less money for research.

      > An early-career biological anthropologist said she was still awaiting contract details from AMU before putting pen to paper because of salary discrepancies, though she took comfort in the fact that the cost of living is lower in France — especially considering that education for her two children, who she said were eager to settle in Marseille, would be free.

      > The university’s president insisted that participants in the “Safe Place for Science” program would be paid the same wages as French researchers. The statement sought to appease concerns within France’s academic community that money would now be focused on drawing U.S. scientists whereas local researchers have long complained of insufficient funding.

      > But the biological anthropologist said a more carefree life could compensate for a lower salary. "There’ll be a lot less stress as a whole, politically, academically," she reflected.

      • maeln•2h

        The underfunding is not addressed, and it is not even a subject in France right now. This specific researcher might be fine with a more carefree life (that is, what she thinks might be a more carefree life), but the general issue remains.

    • spacemadness•57m

      At least it beats being attacked by your government daily for having the audacity to become a scientist. Especially if you publish science that isn’t politically convenient.

    • zzzeek•2h

      you get to live in France, have free health care and school for your kids (and I bet these underpaid researchers in france actually get completely unheard of in the US things like modest pensions). How much do you actually need to be paid? Most Americans would materially benefit from such an exchange

      • rank0•1h

        The data on this is very clear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_household_and_per_c....

        > According to the OECD, 'household disposable income is income available to households such as wages and salaries, income from self-employment and unincorporated enterprises, income from pensions and other social benefits, and income from financial investments (less any payments of tax, social insurance contributions and interest on financial liabilities). 'Gross' means that depreciation costs are not subtracted.'[1] This indicator also takes account of social transfers in kind 'such as health or education provided for free or at reduced prices by governments and not-for-profit organisations.'

        United States: 62,300

        France: 45,548

        Americans need to be more grateful for what they have.

        • saubeidl•50m

          Disposable income is a poor metric to use though.

          Money isn't everything. The french have better public transport, more social stability, a life expectancy that's higher by five (!) years etc etc.

          By pretty much whatever standard you use, their quality of life is much higher.

          • rank0•25m

            Look, I am not saying life is inherently better in America vs France. This thread started as a debate about wages and social benefits. If you're truly interested in a good faith discussion on that topic, the metrics I'm highlighting are essential. If you've already cemented your opinion and just have a bone to pick with the United States there's probably not much common ground we can find.

            > Disposable income is a poor metric to use though.

            Hard Disagree. It's directly related to standard of living. You're also leaving out the other parts. It's adjusted for PPP, taxes, essential household costs (healthcare, shelter, etc), and social benefits.

            > Money isn't everything. The french have better public transport, more social stability, a life expectancy that's higher by five (!) years etc etc.

            Of course money isn't everything...but again we started off by talking about it.

            > By pretty much whatever standard you use, their quality of life is much higher.

            Except for household income, wealth, affordability, and others. See for yourself! This is an excellent resource: https://data-explorer.oecd.org/vis?lc=en&tm=NAAG&pg=0&snb=12...

            As another random (non-definitive) data point take the homelessness rate: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/homelessn...

            I stand by my statement. Too many Americans don't appreciate how good they have it. Cultural differences are real.

            • saubeidl•18m

              I think if you're a person that is primarily focused on economic indicators, I can see your point.

              Because you mentioned it, I do think a lot of this comes down to cultural differences. To me (and to most Europeans!), the economic stuff just doesn't matter as much, so it's not a compelling argument to make.

              I had excellent cheap pasta on a beautiful plaza in Italy yesterday, I got there via 30 euro Ryanair flight, and I booked it over my abundant PTO. At no point exploring Florence, a city of 400.000 people, did I feel unsafe at all.

              That, to me, is the kind of stuff that really matters and the kind of stuff that I just can't have in the US.

              It's also the kind of stuff that is hard to capture in economic stats, which is why I don't really pay as much attention to them.

              I've lived in the US for almost a decade. I made a lot more money, but my life felt worse.

              But maybe Americans really do just have different values and they'd rather have more money on their bank account.

              I upvoted you because you argued your point well.

              It's just that we're talking past each other, quality of life is so much more than that. It's the environment you live in. It's knowing that a random piece of bread you'll buy in a supermarket or in a train station will have a certain level of quality. It's cheese that doesn't taste like plastic. It's having time to spend with your loved ones. It's nobody having to worry about a medical emergency bankrupting them. It's higher education not being gated to the well-off.

          • maeln•42m

            From my anecdotal evidence (so it proves nothing), it seems like being poor / middle class in France is better than in the U.S. But being high-middle class / rich / in the owner class, is better in the U.S, since you already don't need the socialized healthcare, you actively seek segregated places to live, you do not take the public transport (or at least that often), etc, but you do get to enjoy all the amenities for rich people that the U.S offer, which is way more than France since it has a higher volume of rich people.

            • saubeidl•39m

              That is, if you don't mind higher crime numbers, literal shit on the streets, a traffic system that is fundamentally broken due to overreliance on cars, a persistent chance of getting shot, a lack of pleasant third spaces to hang out in and a general bad conscience due to the reality of living in a near-palace while your fellow citizens live in cardboard boxes on the street.

              I've lived in the US for a while and while I'm not incredibly wealthy, my net worth is easily in the seven figures. I ended up moving away for the above reasons.

      • Invictus0•2h

        > free healthcare

        > earn 40k/yr

        > get taxed 30% on it

        • jonathanlb•1h

          > get taxes 30% on it

          As opposed to paying more out of pocket or getting denied a claim? No thank you.

        • FirmwareBurner•2h

          > free healthcare

          There's no such thing as free anything. Healthcare being free would mean entitlement to someone else's labor for no cost which is slavery.

          What you mean is socialized healthcare which is funded from everyone's taxes even if there's often no direct bill to you, but everyone doing the work is getting paid from the governments' purse.

          US Medicare and Medicaid are also free healthcare by that measure.

          • rickydroll•19m

            Which is why I prefer to differentiate them as taxpayer-funded versus employer-subsidized health care

          • saubeidl•2h

            If we redefine words to have no meaning, then there is no such thing as words with meaning, yes.

          • zzzeek•2h

            pointless pedantry

            "free" means "no payment is due for medical care, regardless of how extensive the care"

        • zzzeek•2h

          can bike to work without being run down by a 10 ft high pickup truck, I dunno sign me up maybe

    • computerthings•1h

      [dead]

  • probably_wrong•2h

    > The university’s president insisted that participants in the “Safe Place for Science” program would be paid the same wages as French researchers. The statement sought to appease concerns within France’s academic community that money would now be focused on drawing U.S. scientists whereas local researchers have long complained of insufficient funding.

    I think the University's president is being cheeky or directly obtuse. Sure, US refugee researchers will get the same wage as a French researcher, but that's poor comfort for the French researchers who would have otherwise gotten those positions.

    I understand that the University is aiming at getting top researchers for peanuts which wouldn't be a bad deal for French science as a whole, but it is still a bad deal for the French science community.

    • kouru225•2h

      You think it’s a bad thing that French researchers will have direct access to the “top researchers”???

      Sounds like a major benefit to French researchers

      • probably_wrong•2h

        It's only a benefit for the French researchers who can get a position in France. Those who can't are already forced to emigrate (and we're back to where we started) or to quit science entirely.

        But retention is also a problem. How many of those scientists will stay in Aix-Marseille? Refugees, almost by definition, go back to their country once things calm down. And life in a country where you don't speak the language is not conducive to staying there long.

        I'm not saying everything will be bad - there's a plus associated to getting great minds for cheap. But if I were a French scientist fighting for grants I would definitely feel odd about my country explicitly telling me "French need not apply".

      • saubeidl•2h

        I think they're talking about other French researchers, which will now have to compete with these "refugees" for positions.

    • busterarm•2h

      And the ascending French political right will paint this as a continuance of decades of French policy prioritizing immigrants over French people.

      So when they eventually have the political reigns, this policy will end and these researchers will have to start over somewhere else.

      • saubeidl•1h

        I don't think the cordon sanitaire will break any time soon.

    • spacemadness•54m

      Isn’t this the same argument that America should kick out non American students and would be researchers from American universities? Either way it’s protectionist. Basically what Trump supports but in France.

  • ThinkBeat•2h

    I wonder what the mixture of academics will apply and who will be picked.

    Clearly professors or scholars in Women's studies / gender studies, critical race theory, and climate science are the ones worst hit by the current leadership in the US.

    • KittenInABox•2h

      > Clearly professors or scholars in Women's studies / gender studies, critical race theory, and climate science are the ones worst hit by the current leadership in the US.

      Source?? Here's the thing, as far as I know, women's studies/gender studies, crt, whatever... they're cheap, mostly phd students doing mass surveys of interviews or studying metadata. The expensive stuff is engineering, clinical trials, specialized equipment for labs... that stuff is also being hit.

    • ryandv•2h

      > Clearly professors or scholars in Women's studies / gender studies

      Good riddance. The standards for scholarship in these fields are laughable; see how Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work accepted for publication a form of Mein Kampf, rewritten to use more modern inclusive and feminist language [0] [1].

      If your field of study is so epistemically bankrupt and your systems of review so defective as to not be able to identify Nazi ideology when a few words are swapped around, and to then accept those ideas for publication, it's not clear to me that you should be receiving any funding at all - particularly when it's those same fields that are so vocally and vociferously against this ideology.

      [0] http://norskk.is/bytta/menn/our_struggle_is_my_struggle.pdf

      [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair

      • spacemadness•51m

        Sounds like you have an axe to grind.

        • spankibalt•39m

          The replication crisis hit the STEM chadlingers pretty hard as well. They are still bitter about it. As for the hoax? Garbage to sell books to the peanut galleria.

        • ryandv•50m

          Sounds like you have nothing worthwhile to say.

    • malcolmgreaves•2h

      It’s also all science across the board. The Republicans have made sure that research goes underfunded.

  • curiousgal•2h

    I genuinely feel for them. This is nothing but a stunt, once they have to renew their visas and experience the systemic anti-immigration bureaucratic machine they will regret moving there.

  • Am4TIfIsER0ppos•3h

    Give me your passport! I want in!

  • brunker2•3h

    I've always maintained that US academia would pay dearly for the Trump administration's views on ahhh... climate change during the Little Ice Age period from roughly the 16th to 19th centuries.

    • rsynnott•2h

      Not sure if you're just being obtuse, but, er, I mean, yeah, climate science is in a lot of trouble under ol' minihands.

  • aaron695•2h

    [dead]

  • cjdrake•2h

    [flagged]

    • saubeidl•2h

      ... because?

      • oytis•2h

        Well, lots of them literally fled from an imminent death threat.

        • epistasis•2h

          Most of them fled before they knew of a the death threat. What Nazis looked like early on is pretty much exactly what's going on in the US.

          • saubeidl•2h

            Case in point: "We Study Fascism, and We’re Leaving the U.S."

            https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/14/opinion/yale-canada-fasci...

            • oytis•1h

              That's very touching, but not very nuanced - which is fine for a 6 minute video, but maybe it's just not the right format for this topic.

              Like, yes, if the regime is planning extermination of your people, you'd better run as soon as possible. But in case of milder authoritarian regimes like Russia, emigration only made ths regime fiercer and stronger as society gets more homogeneous when dissenters leave. Centres of resistance in safe places is a fairy tail, you can't resist if you are not there.

              I think it's way too early to give up on America - the authoritarian turn there has just started, and it's a duty of Americans to stop it while it's still possible. Otherwise eventually they will discover they have nowhere to run, it's going to have a domino effect if American democracy falls

              • saubeidl•1h

                Personally, I doubt there is still time to stop it in the US. I think the best we can do now is to build up the rest of the free world to be a bulwark against authoritarianism, including the one in the US.

                • oytis•46m

                  Why though? Institutions have just started to crumble (we didn't even see a really rigged election yet, though might see one soon), and the actual civic resistance in the streets has barely started. Trump's grip on America is much weaker than, say, Yanukovich's grip on Ukraine was, and there is no external force that could realistically support Trump in case of an internal revolt.

                  I understand that some people might still want to flee for personal reasons, but in the end the eagerness of people to stand for democracy physically is the final test for its viability - all institutions can only work as long as revolt is a possibility. Otherwise it's just words on paper that a dictator can ignore without consequences.

  • wonderwonder•2h

    [flagged]

    • greesil•2h

      Climate science, space physics, planetary sciences, astronomy all heavily impacted. MRNA research, cut. There are so many cuts it's hard to keep track of. So no it's not just whatever things you think are "woke". And, this is done not to save money but as a deliberate anti science agenda.

      • bilbo0s•2h

        Just, Devil's Advocate..

        but what if they think Climate science, space physics, planetary sciences, astronomy..MRNA research are "Woke"?

        I don't agree with them, but I do know that "Woke" means a lot of things to these people.

        • wonderwonder•1h

          Doesn't agree with jewish kids getting spit on and attacked at school with the full support of the admin and professors - "These people"

          • greesil•20m

            Yes all the scientists do this, which is why they were all defunded /s

      • wonderwonder•1h

        [flagged]

  • sunshine-o•2h

    [flagged]

    • kashunstva•2h

      > What are those clowns gonna do? go back to the US or find a next country to travel to? … Researchers are supposed to think long term

      I will ignore the ad hominem part of your argument because it’s mean-spirited and does nothing to contribute to the discussion. Instead I would focus on the reality of research funding. Liking or disliking the current administration has little or nothing to do with their decision to immigrate. Their field of expertise is an area known to be a target of this administration’s skepticism; and given that they have been capriciously withdrawing funding from numerous disciplines, its logical they will do the same here. What would you suggest they do for four years (or more) while their research is unfunded?

    • rsynnott•2h

      I wouldn't read all that much into polling two years out, especially given that traditionally they don't do great in the second round. The French presidency also has a somewhat lesser scope to fuck everything up than the US presidency has, and then of course there is Europe (even amongst the ol' Nazis, pretty much all talk of Frexit has evaporated after the object lesson of Brexit).

  • linotype•2h

    > Speaking from the university’s hilltop astrophysics lab, AMU President Eric Berton likened the situation to that of European academics who fled persecution by Nazi Germany both before and during World War II.

    This is offensive on so many levels, not least of which to history.

    • saubeidl•2h

      Experts in the rise of fascism disagree to the point that they, too, have fled the country: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/14/opinion/yale-canada-fasci...

    • sofixa•56m

      Why is it offensive? The current US administration has an outgroup they say ludicrous things about (do you remember the "eating pets" bit?), and have started rounding them up (by masked men in unidentified vehicles and without uniforms) with no due process to send to camps (often abroad).

      Various scientific research areas have also been the focus of extensive and frankly asinine criticism. Do you remember when the orange guy drew a hurricane with a sharpie? Or when he proposed nuking it? Or when various research funding was killed by DOGE, often with blatant misrepresentations of what the research was? What about the brain dead woman kept as an incubator?

      Various media organisations have been sued on flimsy at best pretenses to silence them (like the CBS trial which was just settled).

      If anyone is failing to see the similarities to other historical far right rises to and centralisation of power, they're lacking in knowledge on these, or stand to benefit.

  • 762236•3h

    American universities that avoid ideology and embrace thought diversity, i.e., they employ conservatives, will be fine.

    • saubeidl•3h

      Do you not see the irony in your statement?

      What is conservatism if not an ideology?

      All you're saying is universities that align with the prevalent ideology of the authoritarian regime will be fine. Congrats, you're now the Soviet Union.

      • travisgriggs•3h

        I think the OP was posting somewhat tongue in cheek. Sardonic even.

        • saubeidl•2h

          Poe's law at work. It is impossible to tell.

          • verdverm•2h

            check their comment history...

      • tjs8rj•2h

        The problem is our public institutions (universities) are using public dollars on things that are not desired by the public.

        Institutions have accountability to the people. Nobody except a fringe wants universities to be maga centers, most people just want them to reflect “common sense” and forward the will of the American people

        • maeln•2h

          > The problem is our public institutions (universities) are using public dollars on things that are not desired by the public.

          That are not desired by the public until it is. A lot of people might find research in advance and quite esoteric math useless, as it does not produce any benefit to them. That is until those research yield something that can be used in a way, or in another field, where it does impact their lives. The issue is that you cannot easily tell what is useful or not. Some research have a clear goal, who, if achieved, will yield very tangible benefit, but they might never reach it. On the other hand, something that seems impenetrable to the average man might yield incredible benefit.

          Without the freedom to explore, nothing would ever be found.

        • kentm•2h

          Public universities should not be beholden to the public in what they research. It’s important that institutions are able to make conclusions that are true and expand human knowledge despite certain portions of the population not liking those conclusions.

          I would also dispute your assertion that “no one wants universities to be maga centers.” Leaders on the right have said that they do want that, or at least the right wing American mythos to be uncritically taught and not challenged.

        • epistasis•2h

          This is simply untrue and backforming extreme right-wing ideology as a reason for why people voted for a ln entire candidate.

          One things that fascists do when voted into power is assume that any random strange ideology as part of the platform is now so popular that it must override existing law and procedure, and that is exactly what Trump is doing here. Which is why these researchers are leaving. Not because they are doing something the public dislikes. The public looooves scientific research.

      • 762236•2h

        If a university has thought diversity, their demographics will match America's: they'll employ around 50% conservatives. If they have like 3% conservatives, as many do, that is a good sign that they are captured by an ideology, and then the question becomes, why should conservatives support institutions with federal money that actively spread an ideology that excludes conservatives? If the universities want to continue this way, they should pursue First Amendment religious protection.

      • ap99•3h

        Your response reveals the way you're thinking about this.

        i.e. If I accept and employ a conservative person then I'm aligning with conservative values and betraying liberal values.

        What the GP is proposing is abandoning this black and white thinking, or in other words: accepting diversity of thought.

        (Waiting for downvotes from the HN echo chamber that abhors diversity of thought.)

        • saubeidl•2h

          That is straight up not what's happening though and the "diversity of thought" framing is a way conservatives like to gaslight people into accepting their censorship.

          Climate change research is being threatened. Universities are being bullied for supporting trans athletes.

          There's a reason these folks are fleeing. It's not because they can't stand to have colleagues with opposing views, it's because they are threatened. To reframe it as "diversity of thought" is disingenuous and dishonest.

          • ap99•2h

            You're implying there was an abundance of diversity of thought before 2024 or 2016.

            Was there?

            Academia has been this way for decades.

            • kentm•2h

              I would argue there was. You’re using “Accepts conservative thoughts uncritically” as the barometer here. Conservative thought just tends to lose out when examined critically, so the right seeks to compensate by authoritarian measures.

              See heavy handed, top down efforts to suppress climate science, gender and trans science, research into effects of diversity, etc.

            • saubeidl•2h

              So which is it now? Is it newly found diversity of thought or has it always been this way? I don't remember the last time the president bullied universities the way this one is doing, fwiw.

          • jklinger410•2h

            > Climate change research is being threatened. Universities are being bullied for supporting trans athletes.

            These two things are not equivalent.

            • kentm•2h

              They are. Transgenderism has decades of research backing it and the right has just unilaterally decided that it’s wrong. They didn’t do this based on any sort of real research but rather empty appeals to nature and essentialism.

              Sports bans were not put in place because of a prevalence of trans athletes beating cis athletes.

              • 762236•2h

                Gender affirming care is unsupported by evidence, so it is inaccurate to say "unilaterally".

                Trans woman tend to dominate their sports. There are so many examples of this. We don't need to have opinions on this: just use the evidence.

                • kentm•2h

                  > Gender affirming care is unsupported by evidence, so it is inaccurate to say "unilaterally".

                  It is supported by evidence -- plenty of research around outcomes and comparisons to the alternative. The right wing does not engage with that evidence. Your denial of this is exactly an example of "unilaterally" denying it.

                  > Trans woman tend to dominate their sports. There are so many examples of this. We don't need to have opinions on this: just use the evidence.

                  There aren't, actually. You say there's so many examples but I have failed to see any of them. They tend to dig up examples where trans women just manage to place at all, usually in lower ranks. Hardly an example of domination, and even if it was its an anecdote and not statistical. In fact, the right was so desperate for examples that they leapt to conclusions at the Olympics and claimed that a cis woman was trans.

                  • •51m
                    [deleted]
                  • •1h
                    [deleted]
            • saubeidl•2h

              Why not? Both are "diversity of thought", aren't they?

              • sophacles•2h

                It's only diversity of thought if it's lockstep with thier thoughts. You know... diversity - rigid sameness.

                • saubeidl•2h

                  That is exactly what I called out in my post above. "Diversity of thought" is just a mask conservatives use for "our groupthink", in my experience. Same as "freedom of speech" or "states rights".

                  Always only when it's convenient for them.

        • •2h
          [deleted]
      • hollywood_court•3h

        Also, "thought diversity" and conservatives aren't things that typically go together.

    • •3h
      [deleted]
    • •3h
      [deleted]
    • micromacrofoot•3h

      this is completely out of touch with what's actually happening, hundreds of millions of dollars are being pulled from ongoing research that's entirely apolitical... it's a campaign of vengeance

      • bilbo0s•2h

        In fairness..

        in certain ideologies, belief in scientific research and the scientific method, in and of itself, is regarded as a political ideology. Not necessarily only a scientific one.

        To them, it's exclusionary to require that ideas be backed by data and replicated via peer review before being taken seriously, or even published in certain journals. Whereas to most academics the very problem are the cracks in the integrity of peer review, and the replication crisis.

        It's a case of world views that are simply diametrically opposed.