Arizona, government funding for science is often immune to political gridlock and polarization in Congress. But federal funding for science is scheduled to decline in 2025.
Funding for scientific research is considered discretionary, meaning Congress must approve funding each year. But it is in a budget category with broader entitlement programs, such as Medicare and Social Security, that politicians of both parties generally consider untouchable.
Federal investment in scientific research ranges from large telescopes supported by the National Science Foundation to NASA satellites studying climate change, programs studying the use and governance of artificial intelligence at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and research on Alzheimer's disease funded by the National Foundation. Institutes of Health. Studies show that increasing federal spending on research benefits productivity and economic competitiveness.
I am an astronomer and also a senior university administrator. As an administrator, I have been involved in lobbying for research funding as associate dean of the College of Science at the University of Arizona, and in encouraging government investment in astronomy as vice president of the American Astronomical Society. I have seen the importance of this type of funding as a researcher who has received federal grants for 30 years and as a senior academic who helps my colleagues write grants to support their valuable work.
Bipartisan SupportFederal funding of many programs is characterized by political polarization, meaning that partisanship and ideological divisions between the two major political parties can lead to gridlock. Science is often a rare exception to this problem.
The public shows strong bipartisan support for federal investment in scientific research, and Congress has generally followed suit, passing bills in 2024 with bipartisan support in April and June.
The House passed these bills and, after reconciling them with Senate language, resulted in final bills to direct $460 billion in government spending. However, policy documents produced by Congress reveal a partisan divide in the way Democratic and Republican lawmakers refer to scientific research.
Congressional committees on both sides are citing more scientific papers, but there is only a 5% overlap in the papers they cite. That means the two sides are using different evidence to make their funding decisions, rather than working from a scientific consensus. Committees under Democratic control were almost twice as likely to cite technical papers as Republican-led panels, and were more likely to cite papers that other scientists considered important.
Ideally, all the best ideas for scientific research would receive federal funding. But limited support for scientific research in the United States means that, for individual scientists, obtaining funding is a highly competitive process. At the National Science Foundation, only 1 in 4 proposals are accepted. Success rates for funding through the National Institutes of Health are even lower, with 1 in 5 proposals accepted. This low success rate means that agencies have to reject many proposals rated excellent in the merit review process.
Scientists are often reluctant to publicly defend their programs, in part because they feel disconnected from the policymaking and appropriations process. Their educational background does not equip them to communicate effectively with legislators and policy experts.
Budgets are lowResearch has received steady funding for the past few decades, but this year Congress reduced appropriations for science at many important government agencies.
The National Science Foundation's budget is down 8%, prompting agency leaders to warn Congress that the country could lose its ability to attract and train a scientific workforce.
The cut to the NSF is particularly disappointing since Congress promised it an additional $81 billion over five years when the CHIPS and Science Act was passed in 2022. An agreement to limit government spending in exchange for suspending the debt ceiling made the The law's goals were difficult to achieve. NASA's science budget is down 6% and the budget of the National Institutes of Health, whose research aims to prevent disease and improve public health, is down 1%. Only the Department of Energy's Office of Science got an increase, a modest 2%.
As a result, major science agencies are approaching their lowest funding level in 25 years, as a percentage of US gross domestic product.
Feeling the squeezeInvestment in research and development by the corporate sector is increasing considerably. In 1990, it was slightly higher than the federal investment, but in 2020 it was almost four times higher.
The distinction is important because corporate investment tends to focus on applied and downstream research, while federal funding goes toward pure, exploratory research that can have enormous downstream benefits, such as quantum computing and fusion energy.
There are several causes of the shortage of scientific funding. Congressional intentions to increase funding levels, as was the case with the CHIPS and Science Act and the earlier COMPETES Act of 2007, have been derailed by fights over the debt limit and threats of government shutdowns.The CHIPS Act had aimed to stimulate investment and job creation in semiconductor manufacturing, while the COMPETES Act aimed to increase US competitiveness in a wide range of high-tech industries, such as space exploration.
The budget caps for fiscal years 2024 and 2025 eliminate any chance for growth. Budget caps were designed to control federal spending, but they are a very blunt tool. Furthermore, non-defense discretionary spending represents only 15% of all federal spending. Discretionary spending is put to a vote each year, while mandatory spending is dictated by previous laws.
Entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are mandatory forms of spending. Together, they are three times the amount available for discretionary spending, so science has to fight for a small fraction of the overall budget pie. Within that 15% slice, scientific research competes with K-12 education. , veterans healthcare, public health, small business initiatives and more.
Global competition
While government funding for science in the United States is stagnant, America's main scientific rivals are rising rapidly. Federal funding for R&D as a percentage of GDP has fallen from 1.2% in 1987 to 1% in 2010 and less than 0.8% currently. The United States remains the world's biggest spender on research and development, but in terms of government R&D as a fraction of GDP, it ranked 12th in 2021, behind South Korea and a host of European countries. In terms of scientific researchers as part of the workforce, the United States ranks tenth.
Meanwhile, the United States' main geopolitical rival is growing rapidly. China has eclipsed the United States in publishing high-impact papers, and China now outspends the United States on university and government research.
If the United States wants to maintain its status as a world leader in scientific research, it will need to redouble its commitment to science by adequately funding research. (The conversation) AMS
Funding for scientific research is considered discretionary, meaning Congress must approve funding each year. But it is in a budget category with broader entitlement programs, such as Medicare and Social Security, that politicians of both parties generally consider untouchable.
Federal investment in scientific research ranges from large telescopes supported by the National Science Foundation to NASA satellites studying climate change, programs studying the use and governance of artificial intelligence at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and research on Alzheimer's disease funded by the National Foundation. Institutes of Health. Studies show that increasing federal spending on research benefits productivity and economic competitiveness.
I am an astronomer and also a senior university administrator. As an administrator, I have been involved in lobbying for research funding as associate dean of the College of Science at the University of Arizona, and in encouraging government investment in astronomy as vice president of the American Astronomical Society. I have seen the importance of this type of funding as a researcher who has received federal grants for 30 years and as a senior academic who helps my colleagues write grants to support their valuable work.
Bipartisan SupportFederal funding of many programs is characterized by political polarization, meaning that partisanship and ideological divisions between the two major political parties can lead to gridlock. Science is often a rare exception to this problem.
The public shows strong bipartisan support for federal investment in scientific research, and Congress has generally followed suit, passing bills in 2024 with bipartisan support in April and June.
The House passed these bills and, after reconciling them with Senate language, resulted in final bills to direct $460 billion in government spending. However, policy documents produced by Congress reveal a partisan divide in the way Democratic and Republican lawmakers refer to scientific research.
Congressional committees on both sides are citing more scientific papers, but there is only a 5% overlap in the papers they cite. That means the two sides are using different evidence to make their funding decisions, rather than working from a scientific consensus. Committees under Democratic control were almost twice as likely to cite technical papers as Republican-led panels, and were more likely to cite papers that other scientists considered important.
Ideally, all the best ideas for scientific research would receive federal funding. But limited support for scientific research in the United States means that, for individual scientists, obtaining funding is a highly competitive process. At the National Science Foundation, only 1 in 4 proposals are accepted. Success rates for funding through the National Institutes of Health are even lower, with 1 in 5 proposals accepted. This low success rate means that agencies have to reject many proposals rated excellent in the merit review process.
Scientists are often reluctant to publicly defend their programs, in part because they feel disconnected from the policymaking and appropriations process. Their educational background does not equip them to communicate effectively with legislators and policy experts.
Budgets are lowResearch has received steady funding for the past few decades, but this year Congress reduced appropriations for science at many important government agencies.
The National Science Foundation's budget is down 8%, prompting agency leaders to warn Congress that the country could lose its ability to attract and train a scientific workforce.
The cut to the NSF is particularly disappointing since Congress promised it an additional $81 billion over five years when the CHIPS and Science Act was passed in 2022. An agreement to limit government spending in exchange for suspending the debt ceiling made the The law's goals were difficult to achieve. NASA's science budget is down 6% and the budget of the National Institutes of Health, whose research aims to prevent disease and improve public health, is down 1%. Only the Department of Energy's Office of Science got an increase, a modest 2%.
As a result, major science agencies are approaching their lowest funding level in 25 years, as a percentage of US gross domestic product.
Feeling the squeezeInvestment in research and development by the corporate sector is increasing considerably. In 1990, it was slightly higher than the federal investment, but in 2020 it was almost four times higher.
The distinction is important because corporate investment tends to focus on applied and downstream research, while federal funding goes toward pure, exploratory research that can have enormous downstream benefits, such as quantum computing and fusion energy.
There are several causes of the shortage of scientific funding. Congressional intentions to increase funding levels, as was the case with the CHIPS and Science Act and the earlier COMPETES Act of 2007, have been derailed by fights over the debt limit and threats of government shutdowns.The CHIPS Act had aimed to stimulate investment and job creation in semiconductor manufacturing, while the COMPETES Act aimed to increase US competitiveness in a wide range of high-tech industries, such as space exploration.
The budget caps for fiscal years 2024 and 2025 eliminate any chance for growth. Budget caps were designed to control federal spending, but they are a very blunt tool. Furthermore, non-defense discretionary spending represents only 15% of all federal spending. Discretionary spending is put to a vote each year, while mandatory spending is dictated by previous laws.
Entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are mandatory forms of spending. Together, they are three times the amount available for discretionary spending, so science has to fight for a small fraction of the overall budget pie. Within that 15% slice, scientific research competes with K-12 education. , veterans healthcare, public health, small business initiatives and more.
Global competition
While government funding for science in the United States is stagnant, America's main scientific rivals are rising rapidly. Federal funding for R&D as a percentage of GDP has fallen from 1.2% in 1987 to 1% in 2010 and less than 0.8% currently. The United States remains the world's biggest spender on research and development, but in terms of government R&D as a fraction of GDP, it ranked 12th in 2021, behind South Korea and a host of European countries. In terms of scientific researchers as part of the workforce, the United States ranks tenth.
Meanwhile, the United States' main geopolitical rival is growing rapidly. China has eclipsed the United States in publishing high-impact papers, and China now outspends the United States on university and government research.
If the United States wants to maintain its status as a world leader in scientific research, it will need to redouble its commitment to science by adequately funding research. (The conversation) AMS
