Brain Drain and Healthcare: Implications for Women’s Health and Beyond
I have a hypothesis. The budget/headcount cuts from the current administration – specifically, in science and innovation, especially healthcare – will result in brain drain. And, as a result, the U.S. will lose our leadership position.
If you’ve never heard of “brain drain” it’s when education and knowledge, often from scientists and researchers, migrate out of a country. I came up with this hypothesis months ago, and now I see I’m not alone in coming to that conclusion – there have been several articles in the past few weeks addressing it (from Fortune to Foreign Affairs, The Daily Beast, NPR, The Economist, Politico, Wired, and even The Irish Times).
The Impact
While there have been budget and headcount cuts across many areas of the government, the loss of funding for scientific research has been particularly painful – the full fallout we won’t comprehend for years to come. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) have been particularly affected. Scrolling through Grant Watch to see some of the extent of the funding that’s been pulled and the specific studies/efforts that are impacted is downright depressing. And, if certain budget plans are approved by Congress, the NSF and the NIH will see even more budget cuts with slashes of 56% and 40%, respectively.
For the NIH, current cuts have impacted studies examining HIV/AIDs, adolescent mental health, schizophrenia, maternal health and mortality, cancer research of various types, hormone research, and the list goes on and on. These are studies that most often partner with universities, hospitals and other medical or nonprofit organizations, and most of which are seeking to understand outcomes in specific populations like women, people of color, and LGBTQIA+ – though there are certainly many that don’t have any gender or racial elements attached.
For the NSF, cuts span across research in STEM, energy, mathematics, politics, robotics, clean energy, wildfire, drone tech, and so much more. While there’s an overwhelming number of cut grants centered on STEM engagement in undeserved populations, similar to the NIH, there are many that are not DEI affiliated.
This doesn’t account for the cuts that occurred at National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NASA, and other institutions.
The research that happens, and the scientists and researchers who conduct it, don’t just simply vanish. Some, perhaps, will choose to retire, work at think tanks, or find corporate applications for their knowledge. But for many, especially those who are mid-career with decades of work years ahead, the research won’t stop permanently.
From Brain Gain to Brain Drain
Like I mentioned above, researchers won’t just stop researching: Researchers whose funding has been cut are applying for positions and grants in other countries. AND, other countries aren’t waiting for U.S. researchers to apply, they’re wooing and actively pursuing researchers … smelling the opportunity to capture what the U.S. no longer deems a priority to hold on to. Historically, we have benefited from brain gain – being on the receiving end of other countries' brain drain. But that tide is turning.
There’s an uptick in U.S. scientists applying for grants at research centers across Europe; some 75% of scientists in the U.S are considering leaving the country and there’s been at least 32% more research and science professionals applying to global institutions. Simultaneously, there’s a decrease in scientists and researchers seeking to work in the U.S.
Universities in France, Germany, Belgium, the UK, and the Netherlands are setting aside funding and positions, specifically for researchers leaving the U.S.
Aix Marseille University in France has created a Safe Place for Science program for “scientific asylum seekers.”
Vrije Universiterit Brussel announced a dozen positions open “with a specific focus on American scholars.”
Cambridge University is preparing for more U.S. hires.
Research institutes and programs across Europe are creating new programs and reinforcing existing ones with the express desire to attract U.S. researchers who have lost funding and their jobs.
More than a dozen EU member countries have reached out to the Commissioner of Startups, Research and Innovation urging the group to boost funding.
There’s a new initiative launched by the European Commission called Choose Europe for Science, which makes half a billion dollars available and is designed to attract U.S. researchers who have been forced to rethink the future of their research – this program even “includes a target for member states to allocate 3 percent of their GDP to R&D projects by 2030.” They’re thinking long-term, meaning these are losses we will struggle to recoup.
The Max-Planck Institute in Berlin has expressed optimism about the U.S. talent pool, especially for AI research. They have even created the Max Planck Transatlantic Program to partner with U.S. institutions and/or outright employ U.S. researchers.
Spain is strengthening two existing programs with added funding.
“We are going to intensify efforts to attract talent from the United States. We want them to come to do the best science possible, free of ideological restrictions. Scientific and technological knowledge make us a better country, because it generates shared prosperity and a vision of the future.” - Juan Cruz Cigudosa, Spain’s Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Universities
The brain gain isn’t just something Europe will experience, either. Chinese researchers at top U.S. universities are taking their talents back to China – a practice becoming common across all nationalities as student/worker immigration status becomes tricky terrain.
The examples go on and on.
The most direct hit to healthcare I’ve seen, thus far, is outside of the research and academic sphere: Canada is actively recruiting U.S. physicians to help ameliorate their shortage. British Columbia, as just one example, launched a recruitment campaign and is fast-tracking credentialing.
I get nervous about how this will affect the future of women’s health. In addition to the work I do with startups, I’m also a doctor of clinical nutrition with a private practice where I work primarily with women. I see first-hand where the medical system fails (and supports) women.
Impacts to Women’s Health
It’s Women’s Health Month, and now more than ever, I am acutely aware of the paradoxical and simultaneously true facts that exist:
Women are viewed as a niche market, yet we are not a “market,” we are a population … about 51% of it (according to the Census Bureau and Statista).
We were not generally allowed to participate in clinical trials until 1993, yet in 2025, women’s-focused research whether in healthcare or STEM or beyond has been deemed “DEI” and therefore has been slashed – we very nearly lost funding to one of the most important long-term studies that exists: the Women’s Health Initiative.
Women’s health has been largely relegated to “bikini medicine,” yet we outlive men and are more likely to die from heart disease (than all cancers combined) and are at higher risk of dementia, Alzheimer's, osteoporosis, autoimmune disease and more.
There are demonstrated sex differences for how conditions (like asthma, heart disease, depression and substance abuse disorders) and drugs (like aspirin, heparin (blood thinner), nicotine, flurazepam (insomnia) and others) affect women – many of these conditions have research studies behind them with funding that’s gotten cut. Yet, this is a time when “woman,” “women,” “sex,” and “gender” are charged terms being routinely scrubbed from digital existence.
While there are a number of articles (as noted above) that speak to the impacts of the brain drain broadly (or more specifically in the cases of space and tech). There isn’t much, if any, coverage about what it’ll mean for women’s health.
Don’t get me wrong, I see the few articles about the national, state-to-state brain drain caused by OB/GYNs choosing not to practice in states with strict abortion laws and how this will impact maternal health and reproductive health, in general. And, while maternal health and reproductive health are critically important (especially since we have a horrendous maternal mortality and morbidity rate, with Black and Native American mothers dying at a rate four times that of White mothers … a fact we wouldn’t know without research), women’s health has to go beyond bikini medicine.
Why Research and Grants Matters to Startups
We previously covered how women’s health represents a trillion-dollar opportunity and, globally, 2025 is being considered a watershed year for women’s health (at least according to the University of Melbourne). But why should this matter to the startup world?
Here’s a few reasons:
Startups with cutting edge technologies often spin out of universities and grant-funded research; there are some VCs, like Roadrunner Venture Studios, and investors who exist solely for this purpose
Health (and environmental/climate) startups often use grants to fund their growth and/or research studies
Health startups often partner with universities, hospitals, and other grant-funded medical institutions for research studies to further validate the efficacy of their product or solution (not uncommon for wearables companies), which can turn into valuable long-term partnerships
There’s a lot of cross-over between research and startups. Research studies exist, generally, to solve a meaningful (and well-defined) problem for a specific (and equally well-defined) population. Any research study with an intervention is essentially a giant MVP test-and-learn. Effectiveness, success rates and reasoning are meticulously captured and reported (even more so than many of the hundreds of Betas and product launches I’ve witnessed over the years). And, a grant can signal to a potential investor that another organizing body found enough merit in the problem, solution, and team to take on risk or a leap of faith.
By the time a startup spins out of a grant-funded study, university, or lab, there’s a bit of a battle-hardened vibe the Founder brings with it (along with the unique challenges that come with technical Founders … which is why it’s important to have commercialization pros like us that straddle the technical and go-to-market worlds).
Let’s not forget that there are startups that were receiving funds from the grants and funds that just got cut. The impacts are already being felt.
Founder Kanya Manoj recently posted to LinkedIn about having to wind down her Femtech startup due to not being able to “recalibrate fast enough after the recent funding cuts.” She is but one example of many that will become all too common as the ripples from funding cuts continue to become evident.
So, Where Does That Leave Things?
That remains to be seen. Can we, as a country, accept that we will no longer be leaders in science and innovation? Is it the tradeoff we’re willing to make to strengthen other areas? Are we willing to be really excellent at a more narrow slice of science and innovation and deem the rest less important? Even if that means half of the population remains underserved and under-represented? I’m generally a fan of stack ranking, you can only have one number one; it forces us to be brutally honest about our priorities. By saying, “We’re focusing on this” there has to be an inherent flipside that says, “We’re not focusing on that” – even if it’s just “we’re not focusing on that right now.”
The vast majority of the clients I’ve seen have felt dismissed, unheard, unseen, gaslit, or otherwise diminished. If women’s health continues to be deprioritized – or outright swept under the rug – all along the care spectrum, from research to within the clinicians office … what will we be left with?
I, personally, believe there’s a lot that private philanthropic foundations can do to pick up the mantle of grant-funded research. There are some foundations that have such large endowments, they could cover a huge number of researchers’ projects that just lost funding.
We also have the option to leave it to other countries to become the leaders and see more investors and service providers broaden their portfolios with global companies.
We can also partner up. We can empower and embolden founders in FemTech and women’s health to partner with researchers and fund research. While studies that have been funded by corporations are often perceived to be biased (hello, corn producers funding research on high fructose corn syrup), there are ways to address that in study structure and transparency. BUT, we have to be willing to allow the research to be truly independent, and that means being okay with the fact that the results may not support the positioning of the business.
There’s power in partnership. There’s power in collaboration. This is where the female founders and CEOs of women’s health companies today, and the investors who champion them, can help shape the markets and industries for generations to come.
Yes, female founders will have to continue to work harder and answer more questions than our male counterparts – that’s not opinion there’s research to support that female founders get asked more questions, more challenging questions, and different types of questions than male founders (research that would likely be defunded, today, btw). Investors really make female founders hustle hard for that 2% of VC funding that’s been allocated to female founders (that’s right, only 2% of VC funding goes to female founded companies). BUT, if we demonstrate revenue potential, market ownership and large returns, we become a good, solid bet – and that’s something every investor wants in their portfolio.
