By Wonsuh Song
I met my former postdoc adviser and American colleague who had flown to Japan for a conference. Our conversation kept circling back to a single theme: the rapid closing of institutional doors.
In the United States, the new administration has begun canceling grants mid‑stream, especially those touching on climate change, diversity, or gender studies. NSF staff describe unprecedented political vetoes overriding peer review.
Funding is not the only lever. A revived proposal would cap F‑1 student visas at four years and campuses are quietly told to favor U.S.‑only cohorts. Laboratories now rewrite project titles to survive ideological screening.
Such moves threaten the very pipeline that made American science thrive: nearly 40 % of STEM Ph.D. candidates have historically come from China or India. If they stay away, the entire innovation flywheel—start‑ups, journals, tech transfer—slows down.
Japan, meanwhile, held an upper‑house election that shocked many observers. The far‑right Sanseito party, running on a “Japanese First” platform, won 14 seats as the ruling coalition lost its majority.
Yet foreigners already keep key sectors running. They still make up only about 3 % of Japan’s population, but in care work, agriculture, and food service they account for roughly one‑fifth of the workforce. Tightening entry rules thus risks undercutting the very industries that prop up an ageing society.
Both cases show how nationalist politics can undercut science and the economy alike. Global crises—from warming oceans to pandemic pathogens—care little for borders. Restricting the free flow of researchers and workers is a short‑sighted gamble that leaves everyone poorer.
Academia and civil society must document these shifts, speak out, and build coalitions that defend the cross‑border circulation of knowledge and talent. In an age of cascading challenges, openness is not idealism—it is self‑preservation.
Wonsuh Song (Ph.D.)
Full‑time Lecturer, Shumei University / NKNGO Forum Representative
댓글 남기기