"Brazil has launched an unprecedented program for science, technology and innovation: to attract foreign scientists, of any age and at any stage of their careers, to conduct their research at Brazilian institutions. The target audience is researchers from the United States.
Our research funding agencies, our universities and our research centers saw 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 actions to attract talent that some countries, in a concerted manner, launched with the United States as their target: 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 to attract 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 who are abroad, as well as maintaining in the country researchers who completed their training abroad in recent years”), which received around 1.600 proposals (the call for proposals provided for up to a thousand projects to be contracted in this component);
- Support for network projects with Brazilian researchers abroad (to stimulate the exchange of knowledge between researchers and research groups in Brazil with Brazilian researchers based abroad; there were more than 600 approved proposals)
- Economic subsidy for innovation (this call was conducted by the Studies and Projects Financing Agency (Finep), to grant resources so that Brazilian companies can hire Brazilian researchers and/or professionals who are currently based abroad – preliminary results show only three proposals from companies; perhaps more will come).
Three observations about the first results of these calls for proposals: a) there are many people interested in returning to Brazil, confirming the studies on diaspora in Brazilian science conducted, among others, by researcher Ana Maria Carneiro and her team[1]; b) the formation of networks with Brazilians abroad should receive a boost as a result of this call for projects; and c) there are few companies interested in attracting researchers abroad to carry out research here.
Once again, the country shows strength in academic research and weakness in research for innovation. It has always been this way, 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 lines of the Conhecimento Brasil program complement each other: bringing people back is important, but collaborating with those who are abroad is also important; it would be even better if companies came on board with a vengeance.
The lack of interest from companies may be due to several reasons that, when 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 worth it (costs, other ways of having 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 of the imagined Maga program, let's see what is at stake.
Since the 47th President of the United States took office on January 20, 2025, not a day has gone by without news about budget cuts, layoffs, and/or bans on research topics in that country. Some news from early 2025, listed by ChatGPT after three different prompts, are:
- 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 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 day of the president’s inauguration (Executive Order 14151), the ban on research programs focused on – or with actions for – diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). The title of the executive order reads: “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing”. The measure determines the suspension of actions, policies and mandates in the federal government related to DEI.
Universities and research centers are astonished by the order, starting with not knowing what constitutes and what does not constitute an action or program or policy that is classified as DEI.
So, what should be included? Will public health research that requires studies on treatments in different races and genders be banned? Will research on the behavior of consumer cohorts be prohibited? Will measures to include excluded populations in consumer markets no longer be allowed to be conducted?
Here, two news stories about this, one from the education area, the other from health, give tips:
- The US 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. In true autocratic style: you ban what you don't like so that it can no longer be seen or commented on.
Are we living in 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, made in March 2025, Donald Trump called for the cancellation of the Chips and Science Act, a package of more than US$50 billion created through an agreement between Democrats and Republicans in 2022 to stimulate local production of semiconductors and fund research in several areas, especially Stem (acronym in English for science, technology, engineering and mathematics). According to NSF, if the budget is met, resources authorized by law would double the agency's budget by 2027.
The current Republican administration seems to believe that reversing the loss of competitiveness through trade tariffs, cutting spending on research and innovation, and banning research topics is a show of strength. It seems more like a show of decline. The decline of the empire, for three simultaneous reasons, the whole of which is greater than the sum of its parts: it admits the loss of competitiveness of a large part of the industry and rushes to supposedly protect it, it rejects the crucial role of the State in the scientific and technological development that would sustain competitiveness and, to make matters worse, it curtails the origin of everything, which is the advancement of knowledge.
The hypothesis that all this is politically calculated and that, where it really matters, the United States will continue to be the leader, may be true. We don't know. Again, only time will tell.
However, what a fellow professor and dean at a major university in Washington wrote to me this week suggests that the calculated aggression hypothesis is weak:
"I have seen all Presidents since Ronald Regan. This situation cannot be compared. We live the worst moments of the country in living memory".
Trying to bring out some positive side of all this, I return to the fake news at the beginning of this text.
On January 6, 2011, the British magazine Economist published an article entitled “Go South, Young Scientist”. The text praised Brazilian science and said that the country had grown on the global research scene and had good infrastructure in several areas, and that it wanted to establish two-way internationalization. It would lack flexibility in the hiring processes to retain foreign researchers in the country, with competitive salaries, especially for the most experienced ones.
The text emphasized: “Fortunately, this is a good moment to attract foreign scientists. Research funding is being squeezed in Europe and North America”. Maybe this phrase fits better today than it did 14 years ago. Look at this published article this week in the magazine Science, speaking of brain drain in the United States.
Perhaps the imagined Core public call could become reality.
Why not?
This text does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Unicamp.
[1] CARNEIRO, AM; Gimenez, AMN ; GRANJA, CINTIA DENISE ; BALBACHEVSKY, E. ; CONSONI, F. ; ANDRETTA, VF . Brazilian diaspora of science, technology and innovation: overview, self-organized initiatives and engagement policies. IDEIAS (UNICAMP), v. 11, p. 1-29, 2020.
