Losing Trust

One particularly alarming finding in the STAC report is the increasing public distrust in science. Unfortunately, this sentiment is not new; it has been building over the past 40 years, particularly among conservatives, while trust levels have remained relatively stable among moderates and liberals.

Initially, conservative skepticism was largely focused on the anthropogenic origins of climate change. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has opened new fronts in this "war on science." A December 2020 Pew Research Center report indicated that while 84% of Democrats viewed COVID-19 as a major public health threat, only 43% of Republicans felt the same way.

This partisan divide extends to other scientifically straightforward issues, such as mask-wearing and COVID-19 vaccinations. Distrust in science has naturally led to distrust in scientists; 60% of Republicans (compared to 23% of Democrats and 41% of independents) believe that scientists should remain apolitical. Furthermore, 37% of Republicans feel that scientists exert too much influence over public policy discussions, a sentiment shared by only 9% of Democrats and 19% of independents.

In 2021, I predicted this trend would result in increasing calls to "defund science," both in Republican-led states and potentially at the federal level. Regrettably, my concerns have proven to be well-founded.

Losing Money

It is amusing how differently we perceive private versus public R&D funding. Private funding is often referred to as "investment," as seen in articles discussing why investing in research and development is crucial.

Conversely, public R&D funding is frequently labeled an "expense." In the federal budget, R&D falls under discretionary spending, defined as costs a business or household can manage without if necessary. This implies that, as a nation, we can afford to eliminate spending on R&D.

The private sector measures the effectiveness of its investments primarily through return on investment (ROI). Since businesses typically allocate R&D funds to short-term projects, calculating ROI is straightforward. You either see a return or you don't.

Public R&D funding, however, is predominantly directed toward basic scientific research, yielding uncertain outcomes for years. This ambiguity complicates ROI assessment, leading to the perception that there is no return on public investment. Consequently, public R&D funding is often viewed as an expense—and in some cases, as waste.

Inevitably, fiscal conservatives begin to advocate for "cutting waste."

The Biden administration's FY2024 budget proposal includes nearly a 10% increase for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a key supporter of biomedical research. In contrast, House Republicans have proposed an 8% reduction in NIH funding, with a notable 23% cut suggested for infectious disease research. This is particularly troubling given the ongoing recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Additionally, the Biden administration's budget includes a significant cut to the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H), reducing its funding from $1.5 billion to $500 million. This agency is designed to tackle long-term, high-reward projects that traditional federal biomedical research cannot readily address, such as the Cancer Moonshot initiative.

Losing Control

It appears that conservatives have developed a penchant for cutting scientific programs they oppose. For instance, the George W. Bush administration's 2001 prohibition on federal funding for the creation of new human embryonic stem cell lines effectively eliminated U.S. dominance in this promising area of research.

The trend of imposing bans shows no signs of abating. In November, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives approved a ban on federal funding for "gain-of-function" (GOF) research, which involves modifying pathogens in ways that could increase their potential harm to humans—albeit under strict regulations and safety protocols.

Critics argue that GOF research is vital for vaccine development and that the vague language of the ban could impede work on annual flu and COVID-19 vaccines. Fortunately, the ban was not approved by the Democratic-led Senate, prompting attempts to impose similar restrictions at the state level. Wisconsin and Texas are currently considering such bans, while Florida has already enacted one, despite having no GOF research facilities.

Given the extreme partisan divisions in Congress regarding budget issues, it seems unlikely that funding for science and technology will double in the near future. Furthermore, is there any genuine political will to tackle the complex issue of K-12 education quality, which also becomes rapidly politicized? I doubt it.

While I can envision the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) releasing a report or two it deems strategic, will these reports result in any more substantial change than the STAC and CFR reports? I don't believe so.

I foresee the challenges facing science and technology in America continuing to mount. The only catalysts for change may be a dramatic decline in American scientific prowess due to competition or a serious national security threat stemming from inadequate R&D support.

In other words, we may need another Sputnik moment to spur action.