Editorial: US science-funding cuts—Are we throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

The administration of Donald J. Trump has ambitious goals around reducing US government spending and increasing efficiency, including in its scientific research and development programs. It has taken multiple actions in pursuit of those goals. One of the latest steps is the US National Institutes of Health’s Feb. 7 decision, now subject to two temporary restraining orders, limiting funding of indirect costs to 15% of grants.

In principle, achieving some of the administration’s goals could be beneficial for the US.

But the measures the federal government is taking to implement its fiscal and policy priorities are creating considerable fear and uncertainty in the scientific community, which could have negative repercussions for the US—from deterring young people from entering scientific fields to increasing costs for society in the long run.

In addition, the legality and constitutionality of the administration’s recent actions, such as freezing money appropriated by Congress, are being challenged in court.

Beyond the legal questions, the administration’s actions could imperil the nation’s ability to achieve some of its biggest goals for artificial intelligence, energy, health, global competitiveness, and other areas.

While the administration’s broad-based and rapid-fire approach might cut some costs in the short term, these costs are a small percentage of overall US spending, and the measures risk causing significant strategic disadvantages for the US in the long term.

The approach threatens to push current scientists and engineers out of—and deter future ones from pursuing—research careers, including those in the public sector, which provides critical support in many areas that the private sector can’t or won’t fund.

Already we are finding reports of college students questioning whether they should pursue research careers in the federal government.

The administration’s actions also run the risk of reducing the institutional knowledge, varied perspectives, and overall expertise that are critical to advancing scientific achievement.

Even if the administration’s moves to cut spending are found to be illegal, damage may be done while the cases work their way through the courts.

And there are possible negative economic effects of research spending cuts. According to a 2024 report from the advocacy organization United for Medical Research, each dollar of US National Institutes of Health–funded research generates $2.46 in economic activity.

Rather than spending cuts, consider the opposite. The US has witnessed the benefits of a science-funding boost at least once before.

In 1957, the Soviet Union shocked the US by being the first country to launch a satellite into orbit. This prompted significant increases in US spending on scientific R&D, with the National Science Foundation’s appropriation rising 12-fold within 10 years. It also prompted the government to boost science education in the US.

These developments in turn spurred economic growth and catalyzed innovation, leading to discoveries in many sectors.

The federal government spends billions of dollars of taxpayer money each year on basic and applied R&D.

As with all spending, we should ensure it’s being done responsibly and that it meets its goals.

A slow, excessively deliberate approach to monitoring spending may not achieve this objective. But a hasty, shock-and-awe approach likely won’t achieve it either.

Determine priorities, review programs, and streamline spending in a thoughtful manner; just don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.

This editorial is the result of collective deliberation in C&EN.

Views expressed on this page are not necessarily those of ACS.