> One of those is the International Society for Research on Aggression (ISRA), which announced last month that it would relocate its 2026 meeting from New Jersey to St. Catharines, Canada, after a survey of its members suggested that many international researchers would not attend a US meeting.
> Organizers of the International Conference on Comparative Cognition have made a similar call. Its 33rd annual conference next year will take place outside the United States for the first time in the society’s history, in Montreal, Canada.
> The Northwest Cognition & Memory (NOWCAM) meeting relocated its meeting earlier this month from Western Washington University in Bellingham to Victoria, Canada.
(above is the one that's mostly Canadian students)
> The International Association of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy has cancelled its conference, originally planned for August 2025 in Nashville, Tennessee, because cuts to federal funding meant it was “no longer financially viable”.
> The 2026 Cities on Volcanoes conference in Bend, Oregon, has been postponed to 2030 or 2032.
(I award the above the "most unexpected conference")
>The International X-ray Absorption Society cancelled its upcoming 19th conference in Chicago, Illinois, which was scheduled for July this year.
It feels like a few more examples than you mention, but still not enough to be more than anecdotal.
Yes agreed. So much ridiculous hyperbole in this thread that says way more about the political affiliation of the commenter, than it does about any real or imagined threat.
A Russian immigrant is caught smuggling biological material. She claims she didn't know she had to declare it, yet her phone had messages from colleagues saying "you need to declare it!".
I don't know too many countries who don't deport people who break the laws in that country.
Harvard scientist would be another way to refer to her.
>I don't know too many countries who don't deport people who break the laws in that country.
The United States for one, specifically in circumstances like this case.
Nevertheless, people bend over backwards to defend and justify attempts that not only stand to end a brilliant young woman’s career, but may very well put her in undue mortal danger in the process.
I often wonder what those people see when they look in the mirror, if anything.
Some number of years ago, my old grandmother attempted to smuggle a delicious salami into the US in her luggage. A police dog found it, the sausage was confiscated, she was fined something like $100, and once she paid the fine, she was allowed to proceed into the country.
That is how the US had traditionally handled law-breakers who failed to declare biological materials. You did not get arrested or deported unless you did something absolutely egregious, along the lines of smuggling in an endangered tiger and trying to sell it.
I am certain that they threw the book at Kseniya Petrova not because what she did was so terrible, but purely because of her employer, country of birth, and political affiliations. First, she works at Harvard, which Trump wants to humiliate and destroy. Second, she is a Russian who opposes Putin, and Putin is Trump's personal hero.
Was your the salami your grandma had genetically modified?
Did you grandma intentionally try and conceal the salami?
When questioned about food to declare, did your grandma deny she had it?
When busted, did your grandma plead ignorance? If so, did she have text messages on her phone where her friends told her it violates customs laws?
> That is how the US had traditionally handled law-breakers who failed to declare biological materials. You did not get arrested or deported unless you did something absolutely egregious, along the lines of smuggling in an endangered tiger and trying to sell it.
You can't really be trying to say bringing an undeclared food item into the US is the same as intentionally smuggling genetic modified animals into the country?
Typically smuggling good items doesn't have a maximum punishment of 20 years in prison or $250,000 fine.
She's actually quite lucky she didn't get a serious fine or jail term and she was only deported.
> but purely because of her employer, country of birth
Her country of birth? Russia? I thought Trump was a secret agent of Putin's? Would he treat them with kid gloves?
She was on a tourist visa. I do not know whether the sausage was genetically modified - the customs agent confiscated it, so I did not get to meet it. Yes, she deliberately tried to conceal the sausage and lied that she had nothing to declare.
> You can't really be trying to say bringing an undeclared food item into the US is the same as intentionally smuggling genetic modified animals into the country?
I am saying precisely that. The reason why certain food items must be declared is that that those food items can contain various invasive microorganism species which have the potential to damage US agriculture and natural ecosystems.
And I am saying that this law was never enforced beyond a token slap on the wrist except in extraordinary egregious cases, which a frozen laboratory frog is not.
She's a Russian who opposes Putin during wartime. A fine and jail time would have been preferable to the probable death awaiting her if she is deported.
The fact that HN got to see this article, is a sign that HN is getting to know things before the regular joe.
This is a Nature article, and this is something that has happened in the past 4 months. I know this is the converation I have heard around other academics.
Ergo, you're a Trump supporter, or worse. There is a real threat for people traveling to the US. And there is a growing threat to academics as well. I know two academics who are considering returning to Europe, after only just having acquired US citizenship. The ship is sinking, and calling it fake news (ridiculous hyperbole) isn't going to stop it.
