Us Destroying Its Reputation as a Scientific Leader – European Science Diplomat
Key topics
The US is allegedly undermining its scientific leadership, sparking a lively debate about the consequences and who's to blame. Some commenters argue that other countries should have never relied so heavily on US research and development, while others point out that the US's own shortsightedness and unwelcoming policies are driving talent away. As one commenter noted, the brain drain is a real issue, with the US luring scientists with high pay and better opportunities, leaving other countries to pick up the pieces. The discussion takes a nuanced turn as commenters weigh in on the US's priorities, with some arguing that the country's neglect of its own citizens' well-being is a more pressing concern than its scientific standing.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
11m
Peak period
127
0-3h
Avg / period
11.4
Based on 160 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Dec 22, 2025 at 2:31 PM EST
11 days ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Dec 22, 2025 at 2:42 PM EST
11m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
127 comments in 0-3h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Dec 24, 2025 at 3:02 PM EST
9 days ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
Recent changes in the US have changed that calculus but you can’t create an entire industry in the blink of an eye (and, of course, those changes can be reversed at any point)
In order for all of this to work cleanly, you need the everyman taken care of and actually willing to participate and have hope for the future. Until then you'll just get a slew of likely underhanded populists, because they at least pretended to care.
That's why you need smart people who care planning things. Miss out on either of those and you're going to fail. And right how we have people "planning" things who are neither smart nor caring.
Because scientific industries form a part of the US economy and hire a great many average Americans! And when you employ a good number of people there are a bunch of connected industries you spend money with, who in turn employ a lot of average Americans.
- how many US citizens do these labs hire for every immigrant scientist they employ? There are support roles at all levels, all the way down to custodian. What jobs are lost when these grants are denied? A lot of this work will (hopefully!) continue, just in other counties. Now those countries get to employ their citizens instead.
- are the youth unemployed compared to previous levels? Are these unemployed youths able to do the jobs the immigrants do?
Long term science is not at risk. Science doesn’t need the US. This is, however, a big problem for the US.
When we talk about innovation, hn has a narrow focus on the well-known monopolies. That is understandable, because they are well-known brands, not some obscure innovative Swiss company in a critical supply chain. Reality is more complex than we discuss about, fortunately enough.
But the focus on the winner-takes-all is also a bit unhealthy, because monopolies are the anti-thesis of a free market. A free market needs rules to keep it free and fair. I know, that conflicts with the sponsored narratives--how else can you get people to justify gatekeeper siphoning everyone of in their walled garden?
It's a complete own-goal for us to give up what we fought so hard for.
...
Speaking at the European Science Diplomacy Conference in Copenhagen, she did not elaborate on exactly how the US was wrecking its reputation.
...
The next programme, which starts in 2028, will also be more focused on European defence technology and industrial strength, raising questions over how welcome non-European partners will be, particularly in sensitive projects."
I am inclined to agree with her conclusion. But this is essentially a baseless statement by a European politician selling her programme and asking for funds.
What is your source?
We’re entering a multipolar world. That means more border wars, not less. Everything I’ve seen indicates more demand for American military and intelligence sharing, not less, despite the paradox therein.
I totally take your point around border wars, but I would expect to see substantial efforts to reduce the need for US intelligence, given the caprice shown by the current administration.
> the US government has cut scientific grants to academics working on diversity-related topics, halted biomedical grants to international partners, and demanded universities shut down academic units that “belittle” conservative ideas, or risk losing federal funding.
> These efforts have in some cases been overturned by courts or faced opposition from universities. And huge proposed cuts in federal research funding may be blunted by Congress. But still, the reputational damage has led Europe to attempt a poaching spree of disillusioned US academics.
It doesn’t seem extremely likely at the moment but I also don’t think it’s super unlikely.
They were calling us fools when we were inventing AI in 2015 too.
I think what we are doing today is horribly executed, but likely motivated by a farsightedness Europe can’t believe is there since we are all just dumb fools. (Collapse of globalism as a sustainable system)
were they?
> but likely motivated by a farsightedness
Oh you're thinking two quarters ahead now?
I would just leave it at that.
"Speaking at the European Science Diplomacy Conference in Copenhagen, she did not elaborate on exactly how the US was wrecking its reputation."
I can't really think of many notable things to come out of Europe as of late... besides maybe covid vaccines but its hard to really say that when 90% of the wikipedia page for the "creators" is about research and contributions that they did (and could really only do) in the US.
This same sentiment was going around in 2016 when Trump was doing those ridiculous "bans" on immigration. Since then I would argue the US has only increased its influence and power over Europe. Europe needs help with the war and the US has already given immeasurable resources. Europe has almost no skin in the game when it comes to AI. Maybe that's a bubble but the point still stands.
Ofc I don't agree with what the current president is doing, but the idea that businesses and research will flock to Europe is amusing. They've certainly introduced enough barriers to ensure that won't happen.
Isn't the whole principle about democracy and freedom that you all stick together no matter what political party/parties is in power? If you're just throwing your hands up in the air because your party isn't the one in control, what kind of democracy is that? The whole point is working together with opponents for common goals.
Otherwise, may I interest you in an insurrection? Pretty hot and trendy these times.
When your opponent wants you dead, it's a different story! I am just exercising my right to self-defense.
hmmmmm
hmmm indeed.
The greatest timeline for Latin America overall? Post WW2 to now.
The greatest timeline for Oceania overall? Post WW2 to now.
The greatest timeline for India? Post WW2 to now.
The greatest timeline for the rest of Asia overall? Post WW2 to now.
Coming up on 80 years. Here's a short list, please tell me which prior ~80 year period in history these nations had it better overall for their people.
Britain, Ireland, Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Romania, Poland, Switzerland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium, Norway, Finland, Iceland, Greece, Slovakia, Austria, Slovenia, Hungary, Croatia, Bulgaria. Russia, Turkey, Kazakhstan. Australia, New Zealand, Canada. China, Japan, Indonesia, India, Taiwan, South Korea, Vietnam, Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand. Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, Peru, Chile, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Panama. Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Bahrain.
Just most of the world population in that little list.
Even Russia - the people of Russia have far higher standards of living at the median today than they have at any other point in their history. It's not even remotely close.
'But but but the world isn't perfect.' No kidding.
Just recently I made a post here in some thread to point out that even wein backwards East Germany made huge gains - my grandfather, born early 20th century, lived much, much better even by the end of the GDR compared to when he was born in the Weimar Republic.
China is the alternative. How many countries has China waged war against, toppled democratic governments, established puppet março-states and invaded since 1949?
China also has had border skirmishes with Burma, India, USSR.
There are literally thousands of years of sino-korean wars, so its hard to pin that blame on a specific government. Tibet is a more straightforward case of imperial expansionism from China, although it is also a centuries-old one, dating from Qing dynasty (1700s). The border skirmishes with India stem from mutual dissatisfaction with old British imperial border lines, which both governments disagree with.
Now compare that with the USA list. China's list is, to say the least, much more lightweight, straightforward and understandable. I'd go with that list any day, and most of the world would too.
Why is it either or the other? Just because the US happens to turn inwards and stop acting like the world police, doesn't mean that other countries suddenly start dreaming of world domination. China and Russian both have plenty of problems in their home fronts and surrounding areas.
Do you know how Russia got so large? They started out small, like everyone.
They solve such problems by doing the one thing they have always done: expanding. Successful conquest temporarily mitigates internal problems.
Video: The History of Russia: Every Year - https://youtu.be/uCIp3CF33ms
Do you know how literally any country got the size it is today? They started out small. Some of them are still small today, but they might be larger tomorrow. Some of them will be smaller tomorrow. This is how the world has function and continues to function. Not sure how this could be surprising to anyone out there, even less how you think someone wouldn't understand this very basic fact about countries.
If you are trying to make a counterpoint, try again, with an actual argument.
Yes, today Russia is trying to expand, which they've done before, like most countries in the world. Not sure what makes them special in that regard.
Did any country start out large? Since your main point seems to have been that Russia started out small, in contrast to some other country you're trying to reference that apparently started out large, but I'm not sure which one you're trying to reference here.
Welcome to post Pax Americana ladies and gentlemen.
So because someone doesn't want the US as a world police, means they want some other country as world police? Can't people just wish/want no one to be world police?
I never understood the lack of nuance in American politics and in lots of conversations with Americans. Just because you don't like A, doesn't mean you suddenly love B, no matter how much you see them as direct antonyms or whatever, what's up with trying to argue in this way? What conversation and discussions are improved by this sort of behavior? What is your goal with doing that, some sort of gotcha?
China and Russia are consistently led by ruthless people who like power. Plus, even if China does only just conquer Taiwan and then leaves everyone else alone as the hegemon, there's still the matter of them oppressing ~20% of the humans on the planet (their own people). Even if it's the sort of oppression that you don't necessarily ever notice so long as you always stay in line.
America has failed to live up to those ideals (slavery, plunder, toppling democratically elected leaders to install military dictatorships, unnecessary wars with mass civilian casualties) on multiple occasions, but if you at least look at things on paper, America is selling a better product. And with the (now gutted) aid we provided to the world, and the economic boons of American consumer demand helping to speed up industrialization of poorer countries, benefits weren't just lofty principles.
One nice thing about American ideals is that, domestically, Americans who respect them can fight for them and fight for their preservation and expansion. There exists a thing to fight for. Good luck doing any of that in Russia or China in 2025, and likely also in 2050.
Look at this abject propaganda
“ Part of it is ideas and ideals. America represents ideas of liberty, liberalism, democracy, and individualism. The USSR/Russia and China represent the exact opposite.”
This is just pure John Birch society propaganda and at no point has the US actually ever attempted in any real way to realize this
America has often stomped on the ideas it claims to fight for but to say it has never attempted to realize it is very silly and itself just reflexive anti-America propaganda. Look at FDR's words and actions during and after WWII, look at Eisenhower, look at Carter, look at JFK, imagine a future trajectory where Al Gore won that election.
America has sometimes done the exact opposite of helping other countries become healthy democracies - but they also very obviously have sometimes in fact helped other countries become healthy democracies. America's staunch pro-liberty pro-democracy stance is a big part of why the immediate aftermath of WWII led to Europe becoming a mostly democratic, stable quasi-union.
I am saying it's a gray area but that at least on paper America says nice words. You're just saying it's all bad.
I’ve been in all the halls of power.
Anything the US does that is beneficial is 1. Incidental to th goal 2. Will eventually benefit them US interest if only because it’s used as further propaganda
I think there’s a lot of nuance here, and you have not expressed nuanced or detailed opinions in this thread, so I’m a bit curious about what your actual claims are, but I’m also not particularly interested in debating them.
The colonized people were a lot more influential there, though the US did exert some force in that direction (as well as plenty in the other direction) depending on its perception of the value of the particular colonial arrangement on its own geopolitical interests.
The concept that living in a hegemony is acceptable is incoherent.
Your solution is to wish the world is a better place? Revoking the Pax Americana frees America to pursue more wars of conquest. Not less. It's a revocation of the rules-based international order that America (and the former Soviet Union) put in place following WWII.
Hope you folks are ready (you’re not)
I'm American. Why would the largest military on the planet not be ready for rule by might? Releasing Pax Americana just means our elites can go back to 19th-century rules.
Yes. This is happening in Sudan, the DRC, Burma, Yemen, Nicaragua, et cetera. It entertains some people from afar, but is generally a miserable state of affairs for the people on the ground.
Two years ago, I would have agreed.
Today? Given what Trump is doing? Kicking out military personal for being trans, his poor choice for (not only but in this topic specifically) Defence Secretary, his demand to redesign stealth warships because he won't accept the un-"aesthetic" look is driven by functional requirements, demanding a return of battleships this time with a railgun (to go with the lasers)?
I think there's a very real risk of the USA military rapidly following the same path as post-soviet Russian military.
Well, I say "risk": I'm European, so for me it's a good thing if the person who is trying to break up my home is more interested in flashy demos than functional weapons.
Totally agree. That said, Russia's military is a joke. It's still more than capable of making messes. Messes which were once constrained by the rules-based international order.
England “gave up” scientific and technological leadership during the 20th century.
We are witnessing the end of... something. Is it the end of the Roman Republic or is this the end of the Roman Empire?
Two very different situations despite being so politically fraught and full of change.
Was forced to give up, due to the economic devastation of WWII, might be more accurate (though of course there were other factors too).
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/12/02/upshot/trump-...
Far too early to know the exact long term effects but it’s definitely happening.
https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/impact-nih-research/serving-so...
The US isn’t doing the world a favor by funding this stuff. The country directly benefits from it.
who?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of...
[edit] I think that list is total, not just for a single year. Still telling though.
You forgot that. It's not that black and white (pun fully intended). But it's not not that black and white either.
I personally know white collar professionals who were turned back at the border for having a B1 visa instead of a TN visa for temporary work, while another person in their group was let through with no problem. They've been using the same kind of visa for a decade before this. And they were white dudes from Canada.
My Mexican friends said they're not stepping foot in the US for the foreseeable future, and I don't blame them. They have families and can't risk being disappeared and potentially killed because of some idiot border agent.
https://arstechnica.com/health/2025/11/over-74000-people-wer...
We've got to deal with this vindictive, incompetent shell of a human being for another 3 years.
I have family that has migrated _from_ Europe to the US, they still seem to hold this attitude that they know what is best for the US. They come live here for a higher quality of life and income, then go vacation in Europe like kings, talking about how much cheaper things are, without an ounce of irony. Not sure how they do it.
Abandoning the rules based order, science, equality, personal rights; it all will have devastating effects. For Americans, for everyone.
The US position in the NATO is an arrangement like the Americans wanted for decades, it enabled the US to profit greatly from it, and Europa was happy to have the US as a counter balance. Now, if the US wants to change the arrangement, that is of course possible. But we have signed contracts, blackmail and extortion shouldn't have a place. Can't share sources, but under this administration several powerful but corrupt people in the army even tried to extort European partners already. It is on track to become Russified in that sense, nothing to be gleeful over.
The problem is that the "US" is not seated at the table, just a bunch of kleptocrats and some zealots. The mutual benefits are real for the US, as in the populace, but the problem is that if the string-pulling group has to choose between their own interest or the US interest, they pick the first option.
I can absolutely understand you will reject the following instinctively, but let me tell you that for some fractions in the current movement, the idea of "burning" it all down is something they don't see as a bad thing. Turning the clock back in time, back to the gilded age, doing away with modernity, equal rights, secularism and non-whites--they dream about it. It is something horribly detrimental for the 99.9999%, sure, but they shouldn't have a say anyway.
And instinctively, a EU that "becomes a shining light on the hill" in absence of the USA, is a threat to the USA. The recently released foreign policy isn't shy about it. The same dynamic as Putin has with a thriving open democracy next to its border. Can't exist, dangerous, needs to be dismantled.
The trouble isn't EU <-> US. It is the US as the representation of the American People does not exist anymore. Granted, however flawed it might have been in the past, this is something else entirely. There is not even a notion of normalcy anymore. As such, the EU can't deal with the American People anymore via the regular diplomatic channels to reach a common ground for win-wins. So these very modest public comments from officials you will read now an than in the press are nothing less than an alarm to the American people itself. If you ask me, I don't think this message will successfully cross the information space in the US, but what options do they have? If you look at HN, anything that might be interpreted as a criticism quickly becomes an identitarian battle. Which, given the binary political system in the USA and the general human trait of tribalism is quite understandable, but nonetheless self-defeating and unfortunate for both sides.
Assuming you did mean it somewhat like that, I would say:
a. the American information space is warped and segmented. Corporate ownership, the abolishment of fairness doctrine, information deserts, algorithmic control, conconditioning by corporate narratives (as old as the US oligarchy)--it is all highly dysfunctional. No small feat to get anything sensible past these filters.
b. In line with a, even the Democrats are locked out of this information space. Some titles read by the liberals might be marketed as such, but they are controlling the narratives as much as possible, with language, below-fold, above-fold, false balance via "op-eds" and editors stepping in to relegate possibly impactful stories to books, so no one reads them. Sure, they won't go fox because you can't do that with this readership. For reference, look back at the New York Times: Trump and Project 2025 had given enough signals of what was about to come, but the newspaper frantically tried to balance it with endless stories of Biden's age.
c. As aside, it is real bad, but subtly bad. If one can only read English, I would recommend The Guardian to get real journalism.
d. To wrap it up, Americans are not reachable anymore. When dem voters and rep voters cannot talk with each other, their information space is warped. Do not expect the EU to even get anything in this mess through the gatekeepers. Even the Americans-in-the-know can't.
The idea that Americans are unreachable is false. Republicans hold on to their power by only a slim amount. All of America's most influential cities lean liberal. The most influential right wing media is social media, and left wing sources still have plenty of room to work there. The EU needs to make a strong case for itself instead of assuming what it's owned.
The U.S. Is Funding Fewer Grants in Every Area of Science and Medicine
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46355077
17 more comments available on Hacker News