America is abandoning science

I came of age near the end of the golden age of science. Stampeded by Sputnik, America revised its science curriculum in the early 1960s and I was a beneficiary. As a PhD student, I was supported for three years on an NIH training grant, and as a postdoc, I was supported for three years on an NIH fellowship. I got my first NIH grant in my second year as an assistant professor. But by then, federal funding had already declined in real terms. By 1989, a Nobel Laureate molecular biologist at MIT wrote in a major journal that NIH funding criteria had taken on a “mask of madness.”

In his 2026 budget proposal, Trump proposed major cuts to federal science funding which were mostly ignored by Congress. Now, Trump is proposing to slash American science again, while meanwhile attacking the immigrant labor force that has been fueling science in America.

“In recent years, various metrics have called into question America’s supremacy in science and technology. For example, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute tracks global performance in fields such as space, energy, the environment, artificial intelligence (AI), biotechnology, robotics, cyber, computing, advanced materials, and key quantum technologies. By its reckoning, in 2003–2007, the United States led in 60 of 64 critical technologies; by 2019–2023, it led in only 7. And China led in just 3 of 64 technologies in 2003–2007, but in the most recent period of 2019–2023, it was the lead country in 57 of 64 technologies.”

While I hope Congress will step up again for American science, Trump is demanding cuts in domestic programs to pay for his military adventures abroad. Even if he prevails in Iran, he’ll just pivot to Cuba and Greenland. The damage to America’s future is incalculable. 

At a personal level, I’m retired now. Was America’s investment in me as a scientist (doctoral training grant, postdoctoral fellowship, three NIH grants, three NSF grants) worth it? Well, at this point I’ve authored or co-authored well over 100 scientific articles that have been collectively cited over 9800 times. So while I can’t monetize that impact, my efforts have clearly influenced others. I’d like to see my tax money go to support the next generation of American scientists.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2537854123?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_term=pnas&utm_content=caa4456a-2188-4d19-acfc-d4ecd7070b56&utm_campaign=hootsuite

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Yes, the CDC can change its mind

The Nobel Laureate economist Paul Samuelson famously acknowledged in a Meet the Press interview: “Well when events change, I change my mind. What do you do?” This observation applies to the advice from medical authorities such as the CDC and WHO during the COVID pandemic. Some members of the public are fond of pillorying these agencies for having published different guidelines at different times, as though health officials are in the business of issuing ex cathedra dogma rather than responding to incomplete and ambiguous information. Science doesn’t deal in proof, it deals with the weight of evidence. A scientific hypothesis is one that is capable of being tested and falsified by experiment. I get it. I used to teach problem-based learning to first year medical students, and they often struggled with what to do with incomplete and ambiguous information, which is what physicians in clinics do every day. Sometimes, one cannot wait for all the tests to be completed and all the data analyz...
Read more

About that Trump lawsuit

So Trump is suing Rupert Murdoch for defamation because of the release of a salacious doodle. Nothing remarkable about Donald J. Trump weaponizing the legal system against his opponents, I know. But there are some things that do bear remark here: “ . . . he's suing Rupert Murdoch personally. But you know who he's not suing? Lachlan Murdoch, who's actually the chairperson of News Corp and Fox, who's actually the decision-maker. Rupert Murdoch has no official role there anymore. He's an adviser.   “So, I thought that was revealing in a lot of ways, because it isn't just about going after the entity. It's sort of this expansion spillover, trying to send as much of a message as you possibly can. He's sort of hitting every potential lever, not just against Murdoch and that empire, but then all the other media properties in the future. It's also about sending an example.” “HAYES: Yeah. That, to me, is the point here, is that these lawsuits are not lawsuits...
Read more

I agree with RFK Jr.

Though it feels weird to say it, RFK Jr and I agree on something: curtailing direct-to-consumer marketing of pharmaceuticals. “ The Trump administration is discussing policies that would make it harder and more expensive for pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to patients, in a move that could disrupt more than $10 billion in annual ad spending.   Although the US is the only place, besides New Zealand, where pharma companies can directly advertise, banning pharma ads outright could make the administration vulnerable to lawsuits, so it’s instead focusing on cutting down on the practice by adding legal and financial hurdles, according to people familiar with the plans who weren’t authorized to speak publicly on the matter.   “The two policies the administration has focused in on would be to require greater disclosures of side effects of a drug within each ad — likely making broadcast ads much longer and prohibitively expensive — or removing the industry’s ability to d...
Read more