The future of US science
As an ACS [American Chemical Society] member for 59 years, I have followed with pride the remarkable contributions that chemistry and chemical research have made to our nation and the world. However, the June issue of C&EN underscored challenges that threaten that leadership.
In his Comment, Kevin Edgar, chair of the ACS Committee on Nominations and Elections, observed that US institutions of higher learning are increasingly criticized and deprived of resources, while policies affecting international students and researchers risk diminishing US institutions’ ability to attract global talent. His comments are especially timely.
I was struck by the contrast between that concern and the issue’s Talented 12 profiles. Ten of the 12 honorees were born outside the United States, a reminder that American scientific excellence has long been strengthened by talented individuals from around the world. Just a few pages later, readers encountered discussion of growing restrictions on visas for international researchers.
The message seems clear: our scientific leadership depends not only on investment in research and education, but also on our continued ability to attract and retain outstanding scientists regardless of where they are born. If we seek to remain the world’s leading center for scientific innovation, we must continue to welcome the students and researchers who have contributed so much to our success.
A. Fred Kerst
Fort Collins, Colorado
More to the visa story
I read with interest the article “As Visa Rules Tighten, Impacts to Researchers and US Science Escalate.” While it raises legitimate concerns about delays, uncertainty, and burdens faced by international researchers, several aspects of the discussion would benefit from additional perspectives.
Regarding the article’s portrayal of Kumar, the J-1 exchange visitor program was originally established with the expectation that scholars would return to their home countries and contribute to their scientific and educational systems. Provisions such as the Section 212(e) home residency requirement were designed around that framework. Reentry into the United States has long depended on visa renewal, consular discretion, security screening, and administrative review. In that sense, the present situation is not entirely unprecedented.
Similarly, for F-1 visas, if consular officers are using advanced technologies and expanded screening tools to scrutinize applicants, that is not inherently improper; rather, it reflects an effort to safeguard the integrity of the immigration and educational system. Historically, cases involving inaccurate financial documentation or applicants primarily seeking employment rather than education have naturally led to greater scrutiny and verification.
The United States benefits enormously from international scientific talent, and maintaining a fair and predictable immigration system is important for research and innovation. At the same time, immigration policy must recognize the legitimate role of national security screening, institutional integrity, and the original intent underlying different visa categories.
Rao M. Uppu
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Lessons from the Epstein files
I was shocked to read the editorial “What Science Should Learn from the Epstein Files,” which states: “Researchers can’t be blamed for writing to Epstein, at least before his 2008 conviction.”
We do not know what they knew. Granted, thanks to yearlong legal negotiations, Jeffrey Epstein faced a lenient prison sentence in 2008. He did lie, too—at least according to one recipient of funding, who recently claimed in a YouTube video that Epstein told him that political opponents sought to imprison him.
But some men in science accepted and welcomed Epstein as one of their own, ignoring red flags. Physicist Alan Guth told NPR that at a 2006 conference paid for by Epstein in the Virgin Islands, the participants “probably never saw him without three or four young women.” These scientists train young women as undergraduates, graduate students, and postdocs—and work alongside them as faculty—yet this never concerned them?
Indeed, thanks to Jeffrey Epstein, we now have people who are quite successful in science largely due to their years spent courting a convicted sex offender. If that doesn’t tell you that elite science doesn’t care about women and girls, I don’t know what would.
Some people implicated in the Epstein files have apologized. Many have resigned from their duties to evade misconduct investigations. Some have even been found liable for their own misconduct.
Science needs ethical people who can make difficult judgment calls without sacrificing their values. We need more people like physicist Ivette Fuentes, who, when approached for funding from Epstein, simply said no. Otherwise, science will fall short of its mission to help humanity.
Sheeva Azma
Norman, Oklahoma
Confronting the plastic crisis
In regarding “Chemists Must Engage Public in Tackling Plastic Crisis,” I think we have to acknowledge that chemicals and plastics manufacturing pays many of our salaries. Industry has invested heavily in those plants and wants to keep them running. Many chemists are paid to do exactly that.
The best we can do is encourage recycling. The United Nations is proposing capping plastic production. The industry strongly opposes that. They tell us only about 10% of the population recycles. Bottle deposits is one way. Tax on new plastic to subsidize recycling is another. Requiring that consumer products show percentage of recycled materials in their packaging would help. Limit production of difficult to recycle plastics. We could also develop better biodegradable plastics.
Paul Eckler
Wildwood, Missouri
