Trump adviser blames “scientific slowdown” on Dei, Traditional Chinese Tape Festival
President Donald Trump’s scientific adviser and director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy believes that the recent seismic cuts in federal research funding have provided a “clear moment” for the scientific community to reconsider its priorities, including the role of the government in supporting research.
Michael Kratsios is pushing for private sector support for research, saying federal investment in scientific research, which includes happening in universities, has produced “returns” over the past 45 years.
“When we found evidence that conflicted with existing theories, we modified our theories and conducted further experiments to better understand the truth,” former technology director linked to Tech Titan and conservative activist Peter Thiel, who said at a meeting of the National Academy of Sciences on Monday. “The evidence of this slowdown in science should prompt us to try new systems, new models, new funding, conduct and use science.”
But some experts believe Cracios’ comments misunderstand the trend of American academic research firms, which face decades of decline in federal funding.
“Kratsios may be completely behind. Our growth has slowed over the decades, and it’s the same decades that we increasingly fund GDP,” said Benjamin Jones, a professor of economics at Northwestern University, a former senior economist at the White House Economic Commission. Internal Advanced ED. “For the past 70 years, federally supported research has approached its lowest level. If the United States does want to be the ‘No.1’ in the world, then the key will be the speed at which we progress. Cutting science is just a huge brake on our engines.”
Extensive literature confirms that federally funded research and development continues to produce huge social rewards. The 2024 paper from the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas shows that non-defense R&D spending returns range from 140% to 210%. Another report from Joint Medical Research determines that every dollar spent on research funding in 2024 generates $2.56 in economic activity. Moreover, another scientific policy expert estimates that through economic growth, another dollar of government-sponsored public interest in R&D is between $2 and $5.
But these facts are not found in Kratsios’ remarks, which accused scientists of focusing on “trying to get political points” and programs of diversity, equity and inclusion, rather than so-called gold standard science. “It’s much worse to spend more money on the wrong thing than to spend less money on the right thing,” he said. “Political bias has replaced the important search for truth.”
Despite the “surge” biomedical research budget and “stagnant” workforce training, Clacios also cited “stagnant” scientific advances as evidence that “more money does not mean more scientific discoveries, and the total dollar spent is not a proxy for the impact on science.” Since 1980, he designated “scientific papers and patents have become less destructive” and since the 1990s, “new drug approvals have been unified or even rejected.”
Oster on the White House did not respond Internal Advanced EDRequirements for Kratsios’ source of information, but some outside experts say that even if other background is lacking, these specific claims are worth it.
Paper for 2023 nature It shows that patents and papers do become increasingly “destructive” over time. But the slowdown itself says that the slowdown is “not likely driven by changes in published science, citation practice or field-specific factors” but rather “may reflect a fundamental shift in the nature of science and technology”, which creates increasingly difficult and complex problems for researchers. The authors also call on federal agencies to “invest in the risks and long-term personal rewards that support careers rather than just specific projects.”
(Many federal studies have awarded the Trump administration to end support for these goals in recent months, including funding for graduate and postdoctoral students and unfinished multi-year programs.)
Even if new inventions may be reduced, it may push science and technology in new directions, nature The paper notes that federally funded research has expanded its coverage to consumers since 1980 – claims for the same time frame of Kratsios mark a reduced return, requiring a major overhaul of federal research policies.
Prior to the 1980s, the government had intellectual property rights for any discovery made using federal research funds. According to the U.S. Office of Government Responsibility, the policy has little incentive to find the actual use of inventions, and less than 5% of the 28,000 patents held by federal agencies have been licensed for use.
Things changed when Congress passed the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980, allowing universities, nonprofit companies and small businesses to obtain patents and commercialize federally funded inventions. The university began to transfer inventions to industry partners for commercialization. Between 1996 and 2020, academic technology in the United States transferred $1.9 trillion in industrial output, supported 6.5 million jobs and provided more than 126,000 patents to research institutions, according to the Association of University Technical Managers (AUTM).
As for Kratsios’ statement, drug approval is “uniform,” said Matt Clancy, a senior researcher at open philanthropy, a question of explanation. “If you think that means finding that is dead and not happening, it’s obviously wrong,” he said. He noted that while drugs are becoming more and more expensive in the late 20th and early 21st century development, costs have begun to drop in the past decade. “If you think that means the discovery rate is not increasing proportionally to the increase in spending, then I think that’s right.”
“The Enemy of Good Science”
Kratsios also tied the alleged rejection to the assertion that researchers have fallen victim to misleading “professional culture” and “social pressure.” For example, he pointed out that the scientific community insisted on keeping schools closed to prevent the spread of the Covid-19 virus, an example of scientists’ reluctance to question the dominant view. “Convention, dogma and knowledge fashion are the enemies of good science,” he said.
He added that administrative burdens also hinder scientific enterprises.
“Funds for basic and blue science must be used for this purpose, rather than feeding the traditional tape festival that is often accompanied by funded research,” Kratsios said. “We cannot resign from our research community and the lab and university staff who support their deaths for a thousand 10-minute missions. To assist scientists in the U.S. in careers, we will reduce the administrative burden on federally funded researchers rather than getting stuck in the bureaucracy.”
Expanding the role of private funders is part of the Kratsios solution.
“In a time of fiscal constraints and geopolitical challenges, the increase in private funding can make it easier for federal grant agencies to refocus public funding on basic research and national interests,” he said at the NAS conference.
“Price, challenges, public-private partnerships and other novel funding mechanisms can increase the impact of target federal dollars. We must delineate grants to clear strategic goals while still allowing open scientific exploration, thus shaping a universal funding environment that demonstrates what our national priorities are.”
According to Cracios, private businesses can step in well. He claimed the industry “spent more than three times in R&D, not the federal government spending,” although it is not clear from where he maps the statistics. According to AUTM, industry spending accounts for only 6.8% of all research spending in the United States in 2023, compared with 56.6% of the federal government. ((Internal Advanced ED It has been previously reported that seeking private funders meaningfully compensate for the current academic research challenges of the Trump administration. )
Shalin Jyotishi, senior adviser for the New American Education, Labor and Job Futures, said that while some of the issues raised by Kratsios about federal science policy are worth it, the government has not put forward a clear vision for reform.
“Instead, what we are seeing is that ‘creative destruction’ plays a role in federal research businesses without the ‘creative’ part,” he said. “It’s not too late. The government can and should still save federal research businesses and develop reforms to make it better.”
