America has already lost its scientific competitive edge in the world, and funding cuts that are planned for early 2025 could cause this slide to worsen.
America’s ability to compete globally may be weakened by proposed cuts to federal agencies that support scientific research. These changes would also have an adverse effect on the economy and the country’s capacity to recruit and educate the next generation of researchers.
I am an astronomer who has served as a senior administrator at the College of Science at the University of Arizona. I have a stake in the future of scientific research in the US because of these roles. I’m concerned that some possible discoveries won’t be made and that budget cuts may result in a drop in the quantity and caliber of research published.
The endless frontier
The United States’ post-World War II prosperity was largely a result of its investments in research and technology.
Vannevar Bush was the president of the Carnegie Institution and the founder of the firm that became Raytheon. He presented President Franklin D. Roosevelt with a study titled “The Endless Frontier” in 1945.
Bush made the case in this report that scientific research was crucial to the nation’s security and economic prosperity. His efforts resulted in the establishment of the National scientific Foundation and modern scientific policy. He maintained that a centralized method of funding science would effectively allocate funds to university researchers.
Since 1945, 85% of the development in the U.S. economy has been driven by scientific and technological advancements. Research produces new technologies, inventions, and solutions that enhance people’s quality of life and propel economic growth, making science and innovation the engines of wealth.
This causal relationship holds true globally, with scientific research resulting in inventions and breakthroughs that foster economic growth.
The importance of basic research
Since 1990, R&D spending has tripled, but business-funded applied research has fueled this expansion, while federal funding for basic research has remained flat. The difference is significant since fundamental research, which is only exploratory in nature, has significant advantages later on.
One such instance is quantum computing. The foundational physics of quantum mechanics served as the foundation for quantum computing forty years ago.Only in the last few years has it advanced to the point where quantum computers can outperform classical computers in solving certain tasks.
Globally, basic research is more profitable and contributes more to economic expansion than applied research. This is due to the fact that fundamental research broadens the body of knowledge that innovators might utilize.
For instance, according to a biotech advocacy group, every dollar of financing for the National Institutes of Health results in $2.46 in economic activity. This is why the recent reduction of $9 billion in funding for the organization is so alarming.
Science is also valued by the American public. More over three out of four Americans believe that research investment is generating employment possibilities, and a comparable majority are certain that scientists work in the public interest, despite a period of diminishing trust in public institutions.
Science superpower slipping
American science is superior in certain ways. More than 40% of scientific Nobel Prizes have been awarded to American researchers, three times as many as to those from any other nation. The United States invests more in research and development than any other nation, and its research universities are a draw for bright scientists.
However, there is fierce rivalry to become a science powerhouse, and a number of indicators point to the US losing ground. The share of GDP devoted to research & development has decreased from 1.9% in 1964 to 0.7% in 2021. In 2021, the United States came in at number 12 globally, trailing only South Korea and European nations.
The United States ranks 10th in terms of the proportion of scientific researchers in the labor force.
The same is true for research quality metrics. China surpassed the US as the country with the highest percentage of the top 1% most-cited publications in 2020.
In addition to having more patents than any other country in the world, China has been spending more on research in recent decades than the United States. In terms of innovation in science and technology, Switzerland and Sweden outperform the US. This notion of innovation encompasses improvements to results in the form of new products or services, going beyond laboratory research and the quantity of published scientific articles.
Three out of four American academics and technical workers believe that the US has already lost the race for global leadership.
Threats to science funding
Threats to research funding made at the start of President Donald Trump’s second term are concerning in light of this.
Science agencies were in disarray as they attempted to understand Trump’s initial round of executive orders. Eliminating programs and rhetoric pertaining to diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI, was a major source of fear.
In particular, the National Science Foundation is being targeted. It has been screening grants to ensure they conform with orders from the U.S. president, and it stopped the regular review and approval of grants and new expenditures in late January 2025, hindering future research.
On February 7, 2024, the National Institutes of Health stated that it will limit overhead rates to 15%. This decision shocked many researchers, but a judge has since temporarily stopped it. These indirect costs support the operation and upkeep of lab facilities, and the National Institutes of Health is the largest supporter of biomedical research worldwide. They are necessary when conducting research.
Deeper cuts have been recommended by the new administration. The National Science Foundation has been instructed to get ready for the loss of two-thirds of its money and half of its employees. Similar risks of funding cuts and layoffs are being faced by other government research bodies.
The impact
Federal funding for science agencies is at a 25-year low, and Congress has already fallen short of its 2022 pledge to invest more in research.
The president’s initiatives will put the historically bipartisan support that science has maintained to the test as they make their way to Congress for approval or negotiation. I think there will be a significant influence on job creation, young scientists’ training, and the state of the economy if Congress continues to decrease spending.
Significant cuts to organizations that get just over 1% of federal money will not reduce the skyrocketing budget deficit, but they could permanently damage one of the most valued businesses in the country.
Chris Impey, University of Arizona Distinguished Professor of Astronomy
The Conversation has republished this article under a Creative Commons license. Go through the original article.