Berlin, Germany (Weltexpress). Now that the People’s Republic of China has risen to become the new global leader in science and research, the ‘brain drain’ to the USA is finally over. China is now offering the world’s brightest young scientists 15-year research fellowships.
When America attracted the world’s brightest minds
In the decades following the end of the Second World War, the US had virtually sucked up renowned professors and promising young ‘brainiacs’ from the fields of ‘science and research’ in Europe and other countries around the world, like a giant vacuum cleaner.
Not only were the best salaries paid in the United States, but the facilities at US research institutions were also unrivalled. Funding for research projects seemed unlimited, and the standard of living and living conditions in the US were second to none. Having conducted research in the United States of America carried great prestige in old Europe and looked good on the CVs of those who returned to Europe. Many others, however, settled permanently in the USA.
At the time, people spoke of a ‘brain drain’. The term refers to the loss of scientists, engineers, doctors and other highly qualified professionals, whose education had cost taxpayers a great deal of money in their respective countries of origin.
The counterpart is known as ‘brain gain’ – the influx of these same individuals into the destination country. The term originated in the English-speaking world in the early 1960s. The Oxford English Dictionary records the earliest attestation as being in 1960. It became widely known through the debate in the UK, where concerns had already been growing in the 1950s that British scientists and engineers were emigrating to the US and Canada. A 1963 report by the Royal Society on this scientific emigration brought the term ‘brain drain’ to the attention of the wider public.
The brain drain is reversing – the US is losing its appeal
This brain drain towards the US has been over for some time. It began to level off during the 1980s. Against a backdrop of increasing social tensions, societal polarisation and growing financial problems – including within the US scientific sector – the former brain drain from Europe to the US has for many years now fallen to the level of a normal scientific exchange, whilst the problem persisted for Asian countries, which continued to lose their brightest minds to the US.
Interestingly, however, it can be observed that it was primarily academics from China who were unable to cope with the growing anti-Chinese sentiment in the country, fuelled by Washington’s policies, and have therefore been returning to their homeland in increasing numbers for several years. At the same time, the Trump administration has significantly restricted the granting of visas to Chinese researchers and students. This led former Google CEO Eric Schmidt to warn that, with these anti-Chinese measures, Washington was primarily harming scientific progress in the US rather than China.
Washington’s own goal: How the US is driving away top scientific talent
Even during Donald Trump’s first term in office, thousands of visas – primarily for graduates from certain Chinese universities – had been revoked (Proclamation 10043 of 2020).
In 2025, broader restrictions were introduced that affected more than just China: visa interviews were temporarily suspended, applicants were screened for their political views on social media apps, and a fee of $100,000 was imposed on new H-1B visa applications.
During Trump’s second term, his Foreign Secretary, Marco Rubio, announced on 28 May 2025 that visas for Chinese students would be “aggressively revoked” if they had links to the Communist Party or were studying in “critical fields”. At the same time, all future applications from the People’s Republic and Hong Kong were to be subject to stricter scrutiny. Exactly what “critical fields” encompass was not defined; they apparently refer primarily to sensitive technological sectors such as semiconductors, aerospace and dual-use research.
Eric Schmidt has been warning for years about the negative consequences of this policy for the US. In 2019, Schmidt said that restrictions on recruiting top Chinese talent were damaging the US tech industry. In 2020, he described efforts to restrict access for Chinese students as “contrary to our own interests”, because many of the best postgraduates working in US laboratories came from China. In 2023, he wrote in *Foreign Affairs* that Washington should attract rather than exclude Chinese scientists; otherwise, the United States would suffer greater harm in the long term.
Beijing favours cooperation over exclusion
And now China is offering scientists from all over the world who are under 35 years of age long-term financial support for their research projects, without any short-term performance assessments. However, researchers are required to be physically present in laboratories within the People’s Republic.
China’s unusual programme aims not only to support the world’s brightest young scientists – and thereby win them over to its side – but also to strengthen and internationalise science and research in the long term in their countries of origin, to which these young people will return. This is a typical example of China’s relations with other countries.
It is a policy that consistently aims for a win-win situation, an arrangement in which both sides benefit.
Win-win rather than a zero-sum game: two opposing conceptions of world politics
In stark contrast to this win-win policy stands the neo-liberal zero-sum credo of the Western imperialists, which assumes that any gain by the other side weakens one’s own position. This is what Western imperialists have always sought to do – to keep their designated adversaries in check and, for example, to cut them off from access to energy and other vital resources required for a country’s economic and technological development.
Another example of China’s win-win policy is the assistance it provides for the implementation of massive infrastructure projects in the countries of the ‘Global South’; ranging from bridges, roads and railway lines, through the construction of universities and schools, to modern hospitals. Of course, China also has its own interests in mind with these long-term ventures, such as access to and the export of raw materials. However, unlike Western neo-colonialism, the reserves of raw materials remain the property of the respective nation states.
Another aspect of this win-win concept is that China is creating new markets for its products in these countries. Thanks to the economic growth in the Global South initiated by China, the populations of these countries are able, for the first time, to enjoy a modest level of prosperity and even afford some of the consumer goods from China that are coveted worldwide.
Whilst Washington shuts out talent, China offers them a 15-year future
If we look at the new Chinese programme for young researchers from all over the world, a clear difference once again emerges compared with the Western approach, which plans for the short term and demands rapid results for the sake of commercial exploitation.
Under the new Chinese programme, selected scientists under the age of 35 can concentrate entirely on their research without having to constantly worry about funding applications, short-term results or performance assessments. This is because their financial support is guaranteed for the next 15 years.
The programme is organised by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC), the country’s leading institution for the promotion of basic research. Its director, Dou Xiankang, describes the idea as remarkably simple: find exceptionally talented young scientists, give them money and time, and allow them to pursue new ideas.
Throughout the entire 15 years, the researchers will not be assessed against the usual short-term criteria, such as how many papers they publish or whether they quickly produce discoveries that can be commercially exploited. According to Dou, the main requirement is essentially that they continue to work in the laboratory.
“We don’t mind if there is no short-term success,” he says. What matters, he explains, is that the researchers have the opportunity to settle in and concentrate on their scientific work.
