Science funding in the US – at a critical juncture!

A quick primer on US science funding:

As someone who has spent many years in the scientific community, I am acutely aware of how science is funded in this country. So, the “science denial” and funding cutbacks of the current administration have me deeply troubled. However, I’ve realized that the large majority of American citizens have no idea how science is funded, and the deep impacts this funding has in their daily lives. Many things we take for granted in our daily lives would not exist at all if it weren’t for the US government’s past funding of the sciences, beginning after World War II.

“General science” funding:

When I speak of “government science funding”, I am talking specifically national spending on both specific subjects and, more importantly on “general science”. General science consists of foundational understandings of physical, life and earth sciences. Understanding of general science enables specific science research: for instance general biology understanding is necessary before looking at a specific biological process.

Example: the internet:

Let’s take a simple example, the internet. The internet’s origins date back to the 1960’s and the cold war: computers were very large, expensive machines, so access was very limited, and data could only be transferred physically (“sneaker-net”). The US and Soviet Union were in a race to try to prevent nuclear attacks, or be able to respond to them, and these precious few computers available needed better access and, more importantly, ways to transfer data between locations and researchers.

Additionally, these proposed “networks” needed to be “survivable” in the event of a nuclear attack. This meant that if one part of the network gets disabled, the communication could still occur. The solution was development of packet-switched networks. In the early 1960’s, the US began funding of the basic computer science needed to develop this capability. After years of work funded by the U.S. Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), ARPANET was born in 1969. The “internet” as we now know it took another 14 years to come about (1983), when the TCP/IP protocol was introduced.

How science funding makes the US a world leader:

The internet and all of its related technologies are but one single example of how long-term, government funding of general science has produced results that made the US a worldwide leader in science and technology:

Ever since World War II, the US has been the global leader in science and technology—and benefited immensely from it. Research fuels American innovation and the economy in turn. Scientists around the world want to study in the US and collaborate with American scientists to produce more of that research. These international collaborations play a critical role in American soft power and diplomacy. The products Americans can buy, the drugs they have access to, the diseases they’re at risk of catching—are all directly related to the strength of American research and its connections to the world’s scientists.

Source: MIT Technology Review

The point that is important here is that the science leadership position of the US has many benefits beyond just the discoveries that come out of the research. By being the leader, the US attracts a large number of international students to its universities, many of whom stay in the US and work here after graduation. Other research institutes worldwide seek to collaborate with US institutions on research projects because of the historical stability of the general science funding here.

Overall funding:

The following graph shows just how large an impact that Federal Funding plays in funding “basic research” in this country from 1953 to 2022 (click to enlarge):

Source: Analysis of Federal Funding for Research and Development in 2022: Basic Research

Note that up until around 2005, the federal government supplied around 60% of the overall funding for basic research in this country. Over the last 20 years, that number has fallen, but still reflects 40% of the funding. Yes, “businesses” are increasing their share, but that has been more out of necessity as the federal contribution has declined.

National Laboratories:

Federal funding also includes the establishment and operation of the 17 national laboratories run by the Department of Energy (DOE). While they report via DOE, the fundamental scientific research conducted at these labs crosses into many disciplines, from energy to biotechnology to materials science to AI to quantum science and beyond. These labs are unique in that they house special instruments and facilities, many of which are found nowhere else in the world, which are used by scientist across the country (and world). The labs have consistently produced some of the largest “eureka moments” in modern scientific discovery.

National Science Foundation:

Next up is the National Science Foundation (NSF):

NSF was established in 1950 by Congress to:

• Promote the progress of science.
• Advance the national health, prosperity and welfare.
• Secure the national defense.
• We fulfill our mission chiefly by making grants. Our investments account for about 25% of federal support to America’s colleges and universities for basic research: research driven by curiosity and discovery. We also support solutions-oriented research with the potential to produce advancements for the American people.

National Institutes of Health:

Last, but certainly not least, is the National Institutes of Health (NIH):

The National Institutes of Health is the largest public funder of biomedical research in the world. The NIH invests most of its nearly $48 billion budget in medical research seeking to enhance life and to reduce illness and disability. NIH-funded research has led to breakthroughs and new treatments helping people live longer, healthier lives, and building the research foundation that drives discovery.

NIH is directly responsible for the US’s world leadership in medicines, medical devices and health in general. Any modern medicine you take probably has roots somewhere via NIH funding! The funding provided by NIH is the reason that many foreign nationals come to the US to study the health sciences and to work after graduation.

“Centralized science” flows to the local level:

Most of the programs funded through the above named organizations are centrally administered, out of the government offices (DC and field offices), National Lab locations, etc. However, the impact of this science funding is dramatically felt at a local level in each state of the nation.

Impact on a single state:

Let’s look at a simple example: I live in New Hampshire (NH), which is a relatively small state (number 41 out of 50 when ranked by population), and predominantly rural in nature. One might not think that NH would see great impacts from government science funding, but lets take a closer look:

• In government fiscal year (FY) 2024, the NSF awarded $32.57M (that’s million!) in funding to applicants in the state of NH. This represented 51 new awards out of 209 proposals submitted.
• In government FY2023, NIH awarded $128M in grants and contracts in the state of NH. This money directly supported 1,158 jobs and $301 Million in economic activity within the state.
• Argonne National Labs, located in the state of Illinois, is one of the 17 National Laboratories mentioned above. One might not expect it to have an impact in NH (some 1,000 miles away), however, in FY2023, $1,832,543 in contracts were awarded by Argonne in the state of NH, with 64% of that going to small businesses. This represents only one of the seventeen national labs.

In total, that represents over $160M in general science funding for the state of NH in one government fiscal year. States by themselves can not afford anywhere near this level of funding, but it is obviously welcomed by the states. Much of the scientific efforts undertaken in universities through this funding results in start-up companies forming to attempt commercialization. Most of the larger universities now have “incubator labs”, which are university/industry partnerships with shared facilities where these startups can hopefully grow and become employers themselves in the future.

“Wacky science” can produce huge long term results:

One of the complaints often lodged by people that doubt the value of basic scientific research is that some if it seems unnecessary or even “absurd”. They usually trot out the most egregious example of research they can find, and label it “government waste”. Sure, there are examples of this out there, but it overlooks the basic fact that meaningful science is a “long game”. These “eureka moments” don’t come out of nowhere spontaneously.

Science takes time:

Science is by its very nature a recursive process: trial and error followed by continued refinement. For every one breakthrough there are thousands (if not millions) of failures, dead ends explored, etc. But we learn from them and make constant course corrections. Often times “unexpected outcomes” are the catalyst for deep newfound understanding of underlying concepts.

So many of the technologies we take for granted today came from seemingly unrelated scientific disciplines: the internet and GPS both came out of the Defense community, as did the microwave oven (a radar engineer noticed chocolate melted in his pocket when exposed to a microwave radar source). Many modern medicines have very diverse original sources; aspirin was invented after salicin was isolated from willow tree bark, which had been used as a pain reliever dating back >3500 years ago.

From the Gila monster to Ozempic:

A more recent example would be the origins for Ozempic and other GLP-1-mimicking drugs which are all the rage these days, now used primarily for weight loss. Part of the backstory of Ozempic is this:

Exendin-4 was uncovered in 1990 by endocrinologist Dr. John Eng at the Veterans Administration Center in the Bronx, NY. Dr. Eng was using chemical assays to identify new hormones and was intrigued by earlier NIH research showing that venom from certain snakes and lizards, including the Gila monster, caused enlargement of the pancreas, where insulin is synthesized. That research suggested that the compounds were somehow overstimulating the pancreas.

Exendin-4 behaved like GLP-1 in that it stimulated pancreatic insulin secretion. Eng thought that, since exendin-4 was not quickly metabolized by the body (unlike GLP-1s, which metabolized too quickly), it could be a useful diabetes therapeutics. Unfortunately, at the time, he could not get interest for either the pharmaceutical companies or his facility to patent it. So, it wasn’t until 1996 that a small start-up (Amylin Pharmaceuticals) productized it (Byetta). A side effect was noticed, that people were losing weight while taking it for diabetes.

In parallel, Novo Nordisk had been working on its own GLP-1 mimicking drug, and by 2017 they had FDA approval for long-lasting (injections once/week) version named Ozempic. The earlier observations of weight loss as a side effect on entendin-4 had already been seen, so Ozempic quickly gained traction as a weight loss drug.

So, a small, seemingly esoteric research program (lizard saliva), funded by the government, had a huge impact on what is today’s latest “blockbuster drug”. You can also see how getting to this point took a long time, and involved multiple researchers from different countries. There are literally thousands of similar examples out there.

A call to action:

My hope is that all of this explanation may help people unfamiliar with the scientific process and how it is funded to better understand the implications of what is currently happening to US science funding under the Trump administration. I won’t try to bore you with the particulars, but here are a couple of good references:

• Researching lizard poison led to Ozempic. It’s the kind of breakthrough that science funding cuts could end
• The foundations of America’s prosperity are being dismantled
• ‘Deadly consequences’: Health agencies reel from thousands of job cuts while critical research grants remain on hold
• ‘We Are Witnessing a New Brain Drain’ as Scientists Flee America for France
• DOGE’s Chaos Reaches Antarctica: the long-term impacts could upend not only important research but the continent’s delicate geopolitics.

“If the NSF can’t function, or we don’t fund it, projects with long lead times can just die,” another scientist says. “I’m sure international partners would be happy to partner elsewhere. This is what it means to lose US competitiveness.”

Losing STEM leadership:

We as a country risk losing one of our most treasured and valued leadership positions, that of a global leader in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM). The short-term disruptions (and cutbacks) we are already seeing in funding will have long-term effects. If we get behind on this, we will not be able to catch back up, as other nations leave us behind.

We stand to be turned into a “consumer” as opposed to a “producer” when it comes to science. It bothers me that the “America first” crowd is turning a blind-eye to this. If we indeed become “consumers” only of science, then we are totally dependent on other nations, and much more vulnerable. Defunding science runs completely contrary to their “America first” credo.

We need to stand up as a nation and support continued funding of science. Educate others on how this funding works. Remind them of the myriad of technological marvels they rely on each day, and how they would not have been invented here, in this country, were it not for the government funding. Write your representative in the government. Support events like Stand up for Science. Make your voice heard, or face the long-term consequences!

And lastly: you can not run large government government agencies like a high-tech start-up, it just doesn’t work! If you do, and just arbitrarily defund programs or lay people off, then you stand to lose years of domain knowledge which can not be replaced merely by hiring “another warm body”. These scientists work for far less pay than their peers in industry: they do it for the love of the science and discovery rather than financial rewards.

Please help me by educating others on what’s at stake here.