Cuts to American science will upend the economy it helped create

Scientists are deeply unsettled by decisions made during the first month of the new Trump administration. Proposed cuts to the federal agencies that fund scientific research could have disastrous effects on the economy and America’s global competitiveness.

Since the Second World War, advances in science and technology have driven 85 percent of American economic growth. Science and innovation are the engines of prosperity.

All the growth in investment in research since 1990 has come from the corporate sector, for applied research, while federal investment in basic research has stagnated. Federal funding for science agencies is at a 25-year low. Worldwide, basic research pays for itself and has more impact on economic growth than applied research.

American science and research facilities are still the envy of the world, and by some metrics, the country seems preeminent. Americans have won three times more Nobel Prizes in science than people from any other country. American research universities are magnets for scientific talent. The U.S. still spends more on research and development than any other country. 

However, this high status rests increasingly on foreign talent. Since 2000, 40 percent of science Nobel prizes have been won by people who did their research in America but were born in another country. Also, foreign-born workers account for 43 percent of scientists and engineers with doctorate degrees.

And the rest of the world is gaining fast. American research and development as a fraction of GDP has dropped from a high of 1.9 percent in 1964 to 0.7 percent. The U.S. ranks 12th in the world, behind South Korea and European countries. In the number of science researchers as a fraction of the labor force, the U.S. ranks 10th. 

Metrics of research quality tell the same story. Five years ago, China overtook the U.S. in its share of the top 1 percent of cited papers. China also leads the world in patents and will soon be outspending the U.S. on research. Three-quarters of American educators and workers in technical fields think the U.S. has already lost its position of global leadership. 

Against this backdrop, threats to science funding are particularly ominous. 

Executive orders have sewn chaos at science agencies as they struggle to interpret the directives. The initial target was any program relating to diversity, equity and inclusion. At the National Science Foundation, routine reviews and grant approvals were put on hold, bringing billions of dollars of research to a grinding halt. 

Researchers are still reeling from a decision to cut overhead rates down to 15 percent at the National Institutes of Health, the world’s largest funder of biomedical research. These indirect costs do not represent waste or inefficiency, they support the operation of lab facilities, so are essential to doing the research. 

There may be deeper cuts to come. The NSF has been told to prepare for the loss of half of its staff and two-thirds of its funding. That would severely impact its ability to support graduate students and young researchers. The agency funds a quarter of all fundamental research at universities and colleges, annually supporting over 300,000 researchers. 

Similar cuts may come to the NIH, which supports more than 300,000 researchers and more than 410,000 jobs. The NIH contributed research for 99 percent of the drugs approved between 2010 and 2019, and every dollar of funding they receive generates $2.46 in economic activity. 

When the president’s budget reaches Congress, it will test the traditionally bipartisan support science has enjoyed. Agencies that fund science represent just 1 percent of federal spending. But if the cuts are substantial, they will seriously impact job creation and the economy.  

More than that, they will cause potentially irreparable harm to a system based on merit, competition and excellence that has delivered tangible results to the American people for a century. 

Chris Impey is a professor of Astronomy at the University of Arizona who has written books on cosmology, astrobiology and the future of space travel, and articles about science policy.