If President Trump wants to ensure American greatness, he should support American science. The Trump administration’s recent proposal to slash federal science funding and its dismissive attitude toward scientific consensus threaten a key foundation of American economic prosperity and social welfare. As researchers prepare to “March for Science,” I urge the Trump administration to commit to robust funding for science and ensuring that scientists can pursue research without undue political influence.
Mr. Trump has said relatively little about science, other than denying the science of climate change and dramatically reversing environmental regulations of the Obama administration. But federal science policy is an issue of immense importance. Since World War II, when investments in science and technology contributed directly to military victory, the federal government has played a critical role in funding research. For decades, the U.S. research and development system, spearheaded by federal funding of university research, has led the world and produced significant gains in economic growth, health outcomes, and social welfare. The Internet, the Global Positioning System (GPS), and AIDS drugs are just a few of the many technological advances that have emerged directly from government funding.
The U.S. research and development system has been highly successful because of two fundamental attributes: significant federal funding and respect for scientific autonomy. Following the recommendations of Vannevar Bush, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s chief science advisor, the government has provided substantial funding for scientific inquiry for decades. Furthermore, federal science policy has long supported scientist-driven research. In parallel to targeted initiatives like the Manhattan Project and the Apollo mission, agencies such as the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health have long committed significant funds to curiosity-driven research based on peer-review assessments by members of the scientific community.
Troublingly, both of these foundations for scientific excellence are currently under attack. Michael Lubell, former director of public affairs for the American Physical Society, has said, “Trump will be the first anti-science president we have ever had... The consequences are going to be very, very severe.” Mr. Trump’s proposed cuts to science funding could have a devastating impact. And his administration’s alarming rejection of scientific consensus undermines the knowledge base necessary for effective public policy.
The Trump administration should continue robust funding for science, which provides enormous benefits for society. Numerous empirical studies demonstrate the link between science funding and economic growth. In particular, the U.S. healthcare system—regardless of whether the Republicans ever manage to reform it—represents the single largest sector of the economy. Given that medical research can yield lower-cost, more effective treatments, even Newt Gingrich has argued that “[i]t’s irresponsible and shortsighted, not prudent, to let financing for basic research dwindle.” In addition to the invaluable innovations that arise from scientific research, federal science funding helps cultivate and attract talented people—creative, well-educated scientists and engineers who generate new innovations and establish new companies. (Along these lines, business leaders warn that Mr. Trump’s recent immigration restrictions may harm innovation and economic growth.)
In addition to funding science, the Trump administration should respect scientific autonomy. The administration has demonstrated a disturbing willingness to influence and stifle the research agendas of federally funded scientists. For instance, the Trump transition team requested the names of Department of Energy employees involved in climate meetings, suggesting they may be subject to particular scrutiny. Mr. Trump’s pick to head the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, rejects the scientific consensus that carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to climate change. Researchers are deeply concerned about an administration that rejects scientific consensus and chills public communications about science. Given Mr. Trump’s well-known skepticism of overreaching government influence, it would be particularly appropriate for his administration to allow vigorous scientific inquiry to proceed without meddling from Washington bureaucrats.
To safeguard the future, it is instructive to learn from the past. For over 70 years, the American research and development system has led the world in innovation based significantly on strong federal science funding and a commitment to allowing scientists to pursue research without undue political influence. The Trump administration would be well served to heed these lessons as it seeks to ensure America’s economic and technological leadership going forward.
