What we really lose if we do not fund discovery

Science funding and the national imagination

Raj Ladher, a professor at the National Center for Biological Sciences in Bangalore (now known as Bengaluru), recently called the U.S. “the best research ecosystem in the world.” The phrase is somewhat bittersweet, appearing as it does in an article in The New York Times about how the current administration is creating an unwelcoming climate for international researchers to come to this country to pursue their work, a development that threatens America’s capacity to remain a global leader in scientific research. Since taking power, the federal administration has pursued cuts to the funding of scientific institutions, threatened the autonomy of universities, and, on the issue of immigration, embraced exclusionary rhetoric and policies that threaten to close America off from the rest of the world, including from international students and those who seek to come here to participate in, and enrich, its research ecosystem.

It is difficult to see this happening and not think of the many who have come to the U.S. to be part of our scientific ecosystem, and how much we stand to lose by closing the door to those who wish to do so now. I think, for example, of Benoit Mandelbrot. Born in Poland and raised in France, he developed a new visual approach to math, exploring irregular shapes and patterns in nature. In the 1950s, he moved to the U.S. and took a position at IBM, an unusual choice for a theoretical mathematician. At IBM, he was given space to develop his science, including his work on fractals, leading to his 1982 book, “The Fractal Geometry of Nature,” which sparked widespread interest across disciplines, from physics and biology to economics and art. Today, fractal geometry has influenced fields including computer graphics, financial modeling, medicine, and environmental science. There are countless examples like that of Benoit Mandelbrot — of scientists who came to the U.S. to do their work — from Albert Einstein, to Katalin Kariko, to Rita Levi-Montalcini. Such scientists, and many others, chose to pursue their work in this country because this has long been a place that welcomes discovery science.

In considering this history, it is hard not to worry that we now risk becoming a place that no longer welcomes those who seek the US for the chance to advance scientific progress and discovery. Many of the current actions seem to reflect a willingness to run just such a risk. For example, a nearly 40% reduction in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget, decreasing it from $47 billion to $27 billion has been proposed. This includes eliminating several institutes, such as the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities and the National Institute of Nursing Research. Additionally, the NIH has announced a 15% cap on indirect cost support in grants to institutions, down from typical rates of 30% to 70%, which could significantly affect research operations. The proposed budget for the National Science Foundation (NSF) is a 55% cut, reducing funding from $9 billion to $4 billion. The administration also has proposed cutting NASA’s budget by 24%, from $24.8 billion to $18.8 billion. And there is the proposed 14% budget cut to the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, reducing funding to $7.1 billion, which would affect basic research in areas such as energy efficiency and renewable energy.

Many have written about the dangers of reducing federal science funding. These dangers include disinvesting in a scientific ecosystem that has generated breakthroughs that include mRNA vaccines, CRISPR, the internet, and the detection of gravitational waves. We can add to this list incredible improvements in health, including antiretroviral therapy for HIV, discovery of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors to lower cholesterol, introduction of MRI, PET scans, dramatic improvement in survival from melanoma and lung cancer, and more. All of this is directly linked to discovery, all of this is progress on which we should seek to build.

Such progress is worthwhile for its own sake, but it is also worth recalling the economic benefits of investment in scientific discovery. Every dollar of NIH research funding yields $2.56 in economic activity. This is to say nothing of the many lives saved, living standards improved, and the better, healthier world that scientific progress creates.

Few would say they wish to do without such progress. In his inaugural address, President Trump spoke of his wish to create an American golden age. Yet historical moments that come to be called golden ages tend to be ages of discovery, progress. In fairness, it is worth considering the possibility that, rather than devaluing scientific discovery writ large, the administration is simply pursuing a different vision of it. The work of policy is the work of choosing priorities, and while the administration has deprioritized scientific institutions and an open immigration policy, it also has indicated an intention to pursue progress in quantum technology, artificial intelligence, and nuclear energy, and embraced a vision of scientific innovation rooted more in the private sector than the public, reflecting the longstanding conservative view that the market can generally innovate more efficiently than government.

Seen through this lens, the administration’s actions become more coherent as part of a strategy that embraces scientific progress and discovery, even as it shows a willingness to gamble with the drivers of that progress, casting aside what has long worked in favor of what may work but has not yet been proven. That it is pursuing this course reflects a fundamental misunderstanding in its engagement with the drivers of discovery — it is applying a zero-sum mentality to what is, in fact, amply a domain for win-win approaches. Pursuing a vision of science that engages with the private sector need not come at the expense of public funding for discovery. These sectors can, and should, work in concert, through the forging of partnerships and cross-sector collaboration. AI research, quantum computing, and nuclear energy need not come at the expense of funding basic science and the many cutting-edge technologies and approaches that have long been the basis for innovation and discovery in the U.S. We can fund both. A less open approach to immigration need not entail draconian policies at the border and the turning of a hostile, unwelcoming face to the rest of the world. We can do better.

Fundamentally, this is an issue of national priorities and imagination even more than it is about budgets and the concrete consequences, significant as they will likely be, of no longer funding discovery in the manner that has long supported innovation. Loss of funding and talent from overseas threatens to become a broader loss of entrepreneurial spirit and national aspiration. By entrepreneurial spirit, I mean the forward-thinking drive that has long made this country distinct, that has made it great. When we defund science, we discourage risk-taking and exploration across sectors. Science is where much that creates a better world emerges, where the groundwork in tech, health, and industry is laid through foundational support for research. A world without this is a world without the internet, without MRI scans, without much we would not want to live without.

And loss of science funding leads to loss of national aspiration, which reflects how we see ourselves and how others see us. America’s progress through history has been supported, at every turn, by national pride and myth, which has helped us to imagine where we might go as a people, and the discoveries and advances we might give the world. From the moon landing to the Human Genome Project, our national aspirations have helped us to inform, and often lead, the march of human progress, to the good of the wider world. This progress has helped this country become a moral leader in addition to fostering technological leaps, as the world has seen how paradigm-shifting progress has emerged from a society committed to a vision of the common good that values collective investment in discovery. Abandoning this commitment to discovery risks foreshortening our moral horizon, limiting the scope of our dreams and our capacity to make them a reality.

So, we come back to Mandelbrot. Imagine if the U.S. had not been open to him, had not created the opportunity for him to contribute to our research ecosystem. What would the world have lost? The answer is that the world would have lost indispensable science and all the progress that has been built on it since its development. Mandelbrot’s example also teaches that it is on all systems — government, yes, but also private systems and universities — to create the space for science to flourish, and that these systems need to keep finding ways of doing so, even in this moment. Fundamentally, this urges us to protect and elevate discovery — not just as a budget line, but as a national story. Defunding discovery results in losses not only in what we might fail to find, but in what we might forget about ourselves.

__ __ __

Also this week

On July 7, the JAMA Network will open applications for the inaugural JAMA Network Peer Review Academy. The program will support excellence in peer review by selecting early-career clinical or health services researchers for training in evaluating peer reviewing opportunities, developing high-quality peer reviews, and gaining insights into the editorial decision-making process. The program will be open to early-career researchers from the U.S. and globally. Learn more here.