A Nobel chemistry laureate is now part of China's latest pitch to foreign-trained scientists. If you care about where the next generation of labs gets built, this is the number to watch: ten reported moves from US and UK institutions to China in 2026.
Omar Yaghi's name changes the story. The 2025 Nobel Prize in chemistry went to Yaghi, Susumu Kitagawa and Richard Robson for their work on metal-organic frameworks, the porous materials now central to research on carbon capture, water harvesting and hydrogen storage. The South China Morning Post has reported that Yaghi has left the University of California, Berkeley for Tsinghua University in Beijing, where he is tied to a new AI-assisted materials discovery effort. That is not a routine faculty move. It is a signal.
The Post has counted ten scientists and experts who left American or British institutions for China in 2026. You should not read that as a collapse of Western science. That would be lazy. But you also should not shrug it off as a few professors taking nicer titles. These are senior researchers with labs, students, grants and reputations already built. When people at that level move, they are voting with years of work.
The funding shock is real
Yaghi's departure lands while US researchers are dealing with a colder funding climate. The Houston Chronicle reported this week that nationwide NSF awards are down 39 percent and NIH awards are down 24 percent for the current fiscal year, with Texas A&M, Rice, the University of Houston, MD Anderson and Baylor College of Medicine all seeing disruption. That is the part you cannot smooth over with talk about American resilience. Labs run on grants. Graduate admissions run on grants. Postdocs decide where to build a life based on whether the lab will still exist next year.
Chih-Ying Su is the case that caught fire on Chinese social media. She was faculty vice-chair at UC San Diego and ran a lab studying how fruit flies and mosquitoes process smell, work with direct relevance to disease control. She is now at the Shenzhen Academy of Medical Sciences. The Post's profile included a detail that made the story feel less like a personnel notice: Su was a college taekwondo team captain before she became a neurobiologist.
Ling Haibin is another name worth knowing. He built the first mobile app that could identify a plant from a photograph, a tool used by millions of amateur botanists and gardeners. He has moved to Westlake University in Hangzhou, the private research university that has become one of China's most active recruiters of returning and foreign-trained scientists. Zhu Ziqiang, an expert in electrical machines and control systems, joined Hong Kong Polytechnic University as a chair professor. A semiconductor packaging specialist who spent more than two decades at UC Irvine has taken a role at a conductive materials firm in eastern China.
These are not anonymous departures. They are names attached to institutions.
China is selling control
China's offer is not subtle. Tsinghua and Westlake can put lab budgets, staff and startup packages on the table at a moment when many US public universities are squeezed by state politics, federal uncertainty and the rising cost of research. Beijing also has a specific pitch for Chinese-born academics: come back, build your own program, and stop waiting inside someone else's grant structure. For researchers who have spent years in the US immigration and tenure machinery, that matters.
The UK has its own version of the problem. Early-career researchers there have pointed to tighter research council funding and a colder political climate around China-linked collaboration, according to reports cited by the South China Morning Post and India.com. Britain is not losing scientists to China at Yaghi's altitude yet. Still, the complaint is familiar: not enough money, not enough autonomy, not enough certainty.
Frankly, the West has made this easier for China than it needed to be. Universities in the US and UK still train an enormous share of the world's top scientists, and that advantage will not vanish in one bad funding cycle. But training people is only half the contest. Keeping them is the other half. If you spend years helping a researcher become world-class and then make the next grant feel like a political lottery, you should not be surprised when another country offers a lab key and a budget.
Yaghi left while Washington was still arguing over its funding fights. So did Su, Ling and the other names on the Post's list. They looked at what was actually being funded, not what was being promised, and they moved. The number to track through the rest of 2026 is not only how many grants get restored. It is how many more scientists decide they can do their best work somewhere else.
Also read: Fidji Simo Steps Down as OpenAI's Applications Chief to Fight Chronic Illness • AI Data Centers Are Quietly Pumping Pollution Into the Cities Built to Host Them • Iran Strikes Bahrain and Kuwait Again as Trump Declares the Ceasefire Over
