No longer on top

In the Nature Index, which tracks contributions to high-quality research papers, Zhejiang University in China has dethroned Harvard, which held the top spot since the index began in 2015. Harvard is now ranked below Zhejiang University and the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

Similarly, in the Leiden Rankings, which measure research volume and impact based on publications and citations, Harvard slipped to third behind two Chinese institutions: Zhejiang University (1st) and Shanghai Jiao Tong University (2nd).

Nature Index 2026 Top Universities:

• Chinese Academy of Sciences (Overall Leader)
• Zhejiang University
• Harvard University

Leiden 2025 Top Universities:

• Zhejiang University
• Shanghai Jiao Tong University
• Harvard University

This shift reflects a broader trend where nine Chinese institutions now dominate the top ten spots in these research-focused lists, driven by massive state investment, increased publication output, and strategic recruitment of global talent. While Harvard’s relative rank has dropped, it continues to produce high volumes of highly cited research, though its growth rate has slowed compared to the surge seen in Chinese academia

Harvard’s decline

Three factors seem to influence the ranking of Harvard, formerly the top spot holder.

Harvard’s research growth rate has slowed primarily due to a combination of federal funding cuts, immigration restrictions, and a strategic divergence from the rapid expansion seen in Chinese institutions.

Federal funding

The most immediate factor is the reduction in US federal research support. In fiscal year 2024, Harvard received approximately $686 million in federal funding, representing about 11% of its operating budget. However, under the Trump administration, over $2.2 billion in research funding was cut across US universities by mid-2025, with Harvard losing nearly 1,000 grants and contracts.

Although Harvard allocated an emergency $250 million to bridge the gap, this internal funding cannot fully replace the scale and stability of long-term federal grants, which are crucial for high-risk, high-reward basic science research.

At a recent ADA congress in the US, (a diabetic academic research conference) 5 researchers where expelled from the proceedings after they signed a protest note about the diminished funding for diabetics research in the US

Immigration

US policies restricting immigration and visa access have significantly impacted the flow of global talent. International student arrivals in the US dropped by 19% in August 2025 compared to the previous year. Harvard and other top US universities rely heavily on international researchers and students; tighter visa rules and a perceived hostile environment have led some top scholars to seek opportunities elsewhere, including in China, which has actively recruited global talent with competitive salaries and residency perks.

China’s Accelerated Expansion

Chinese universities have experienced explosive growth due to massive state investment and a coordinated national strategy. China’s research contribution score in the Nature Index grew by 22.4% in the past year, compared to just 4.2% for the US. Institutions like Zhejiang University increased their output by 22.7%, while Harvard’s grew by only 0.6%. China’s model ties faculty promotions and funding directly to publication volume, incentivize a surge in output that outpaces the more stable, but slower-growing, US system.

ADA protest

The recent protest at the American Diabetes Association (ADA) Scientific Sessions in New Orleans is widely viewed as a strong indicator of the deep frustration and alarm among US researchers regarding the decline in federal support and the perceived erosion of scientific freedom.

On June 5, 2026, five prominent researchers, including Dr. Steven Kahn (Editor-in-Chief of Diabetes Care), were forcibly escorted out by police and banned from the conference for distributing an editorial titled “Misguided Brushes of a Pen Continue to Dismantle and Destroy Biomedical Research in the United States.” The editorial criticized the Trump administration’s proposed $5 billion cut to the NIH and other policy changes impacting biomedical research.

Two senior ADA leaders (the Scientific Sessions Chair and the President-Elect) resigned in protest shortly after the event.

The backlash to expelling participants because of their opinions was so severe that ADA CEO Charles Henderson issued a public video apology on June 10, acknowledging the “hurt, frustration, and pain” caused, though many researchers deemed it insufficient without further systemic changes.

The fact that it took five days and high-profile resignations to elicit this response suggests to some that the ADA organization was initially more concerned with compliance than scientific freedom.

A sign of what the future will be like?

The US academic system is decentralized, with individual faculty driving research agendas, whereas Chinese institutions operate with centralized coordination aligned with national priorities in STEM fields. This allows Chinese universities to scale output rapidly in targeted areas like AI, materials science, and engineering. While Harvard continues to lead in research quality and impact, ranking metrics that prioritize volume and growth rate now favor the Chinese model.

The decline in US research standing is not just a statistical trend but a source of active, vocal resistance within the US scientific community, who feel their ability to operate freely and sustainably is under direct threat.

There is no clear indication yet how the US taxpayers themselves judge this policy reversal and its outcomes.