It's not aging poorly at all: I think you are mistaking broad familiarity with many STEM fields (I am an extreme cross disciplinary case) with anecdote. You are also missing my point: which is that this Nature survey and other surveys like it are basically clickbait for laypeople to not worry about the impending global reduction in scientific output because of OrangeMan and his MAGA mouthbreathers.

I can want to move to Belgium. I can want someone there to give me lab space, and startup funds, and some supported postdocs and students. That doesn't mean I can get those things. There just are not enough jobs or money to create those jobs in Belgium. Or France. Or anywhere in the EU to take on all the US-based scientists that want to leave.

Elsevier is a publications company. They are going to highlight their own journals one way or another. However, the proof will be in the pudding: what is the impact on the economy and society from the supposed advantage by the EU in research? I think if there is one it will be because the US scientific output goes under, not because without OrangeMan insanity that the EU was trending to overtake the US output. There's a reason that historically the best and brightest came to the US until very recently. It is also much easier to start companies in the US, and my American colleagues are much more active in this area than my European colleagues.

Dude, I think you are trying to argue with me about points that are facts. Yes, the US is losing research jobs. That's because the funding is being pulled, at times illegally. That's not because of structural problems that were so severe that the US was falling behind and could not longer support those jobs. It's because MAGA is anti-science. And those individuals with those jobs or who would have those jobs have no where to go to apply their skills. So they will leave science. Period. Science overall suffers. The globe goes as America goes, like it or not. The sooner everyone recognizes that and gets over whatever their animus against the US is historically the better. Otherwise it's just going to be a shitshow.

And some of us Homo sapiens have the special sauce to understand science and apply it to create even newer technologies. Does that mean that we are a separate species? It would explain so much, very analogous.

I don't get why I have been assigned Troll, considering that I am probably one of the few mid-career STEM PhDs with relevant firsthand experience on this thread, let alone slashdot. Besides that I am very blunt and opinionated. Many people have a problem with that, but it doesn't impact my actual track record of prediction, both scientifically and sociopolitically.

My colleagues have started companies, prominent companies in my field. They have run professional societies overseeing meetings in the tens of thousands. In short, they are the movers and shakers, the large lab PIs, the grant winners, the folks sitting on committees and study sections. Those folks are NOT GOING ANYWHERE. If you think they will, with your deep understanding of statistics, you're ignoring the context that makes it obvious that that is not happening

Finally, you completely ignored the crux of my argument: that many PhDs in STEM don't have great options and are largely going to be forced out of STEM because there is no where for them to go. There aren't enough dollars outside the US to support them, even if you set aside the logistical issues that handwaved away without once acknowledging that people have strong social ties to the US that might preclude them from moving (ever try raising small children in another country? as a 1st gen american who saw it first hand, it ain't easy).

The EU lacks basic R&D infrastructure. It's universities are older, with older buildings. it is more difficult to build anew. There isn't even close to the lab space needed just for experimental scientists. I am not talking about infrastructure in general, because obviously they have more robust public transportation infrastructure. But they lack in their ability to suddenly absorb tens or hundreds of thousands of PhDs to do their work without overly taxing their existing researchers and infrastructure, leading to less efficient R&D outcomes per STEM capita.

I don't disagree about predictability. The US is a hot mess. But people are looking for a silver lining that doesn't exist. Sorry to be the harbinger of bad news, but science is fucked globally unless the US gets its act together and reverses this shitfuckery. Revist this post in 10 years and see whose predictions were right: I guarantee you that the number of US researchers who defect to the EU to continue their careers will be so minuscule as to be completely undetectable.

I can answer your question: it will be a very low percentage, and that will be predominantly early-career people with less ties to the US via family, children, businesses, investments, real estate, and retirement accounts. No one mid-career with a house, a 401k/403b, kids, and a social network is going to pop over to the UK or the EU for 1/3 the salary and zero buy-in to another country's social programs: that's professional and financial suicide.

The truth of the matter is that there are enough positions globally to accommodate all of these folks. The US has long been a leader in the funding of basic and applied research, and while China may outpace the US at present, it's not like most US-based scientists on the job hunt are going to move there. And the EU countries don't have the budget, the investment, the infrastructure, and therefore the spots to accommodate all these folks.

So where does that leave scientists who are out of a job? Either leave science, or bide your time and hope this madness passes quickly (if ever). People have to put food on the table and that is what makes it tough. But the EU isn't going to truly welcome scientists en masse, any sense that they will is farfetched fantasy bordering on propaganda, a feel good action that grabs attention without actually moving the needle.

For early-career folks, it's also having their postdoc not extended, or their term employment ends and they aren't offered a permanent position. God knows what they are doing to the early career programs at NSF and NIH for recent grads to get started at government labs. It's a bad time to be a scientist, and it wasn't great during the first Trump administration.

Biostatistical data disagree with you. People (adults and kids) who got vaccines clearly have better outcomes, in terms of becoming symptomatic in the first place, the severity and duration of symptoms, prevalence of long-term sequelae from infection, and of course, mortality.

I have a PhD in a hard STEM field, but work in the healthcare sector. I know a ton (hundreds if not thousands) of PhDs and MDs across fields from

chemistry to biomedical engineering to neuroscience to oncology etc. All of them are vaccinating themselves and their families and are disgusted by RFK Jr. But hey, I guess we are "midwits".

So.... you don't know anyone with an IQ over 130.

Got it.

We have this data: just look at death rates and complications from infections (e.g., polio) pre-vaccines vs post-vaccines for any particular indication. You are making this sound complicated and in need of further data when we are LOOOOOOOOOONG past that. You not understanding that is an indictment on your own comprehension, not the data that has driven modern vaccine science.

Why have eagle populations rebounded since eliminating DDT? Perhaps itâ(TM)s lefty cunts.

Yes. I still get NIST alerts: it was the wind, campus was closed as a result. Iâ(TM)ve also seen the clock (well, its late-aughts version) in person, and was told that they âoesteerâ time, which is what I think this 4 microsecond difference stems from: the steering wasnâ(TM)t happen so there was drift from the gold standard reference

GLP-1 agonist didn't stop progression of AD in patients who were already on the disease course. I haven't read the protocol (if they enrolled in the EU it's out there somewhere), but I'd bet that the inclusion criteria included something about amyloid positivity, either in the blood, CSF, or from PET imaging.

What does that mean? It means that GLP-1 agonists may still prevent AD from being as likely to occur through indirect mechansims (i.e., obesity is tied to AD, less likelihood of developing AD if healthy weight), but probably can't slow it down once it's started, e.g., amyloid is laid out and tau is starting to pile up along that trailblaze from the amyloid.

Congrats, you've read an actual intelligent comment from someone with relevant knowledge and experience.

I disagree, and I am smarter than you. My IQ puts me in 1/1000 territory, I have a PhD in physics, patents, papers, prizes, and an appearance on Jeopardy. Now go fuck off.

Why? We are working to find therapies, and maybe some day preventative cures.

737 is designed for roll up stairs. Thatâ(TM)s how old it is and why it is so low slung. This is also why the 737 maxes have crashed: lots of mitigation and design choices to accommodate an ancient platform. Hopefully they are starting from the ground up instead of variations on a very tired theme.