S&T RACEU.S. Cuts to Science and Technology Could Fast-Track China’s Tech Dominance
Is the United States now trying to lose the technology race with China? It certainly seems to be. The race is tight, and now the Trump administration is slashing funding for the three national institutions that have underpinned science and technology (S&T) and what advantage the US still has.
Is the United States now trying to lose the technology race with China? It certainly seems to be.
The race is tight, and now the Trump administration is slashing funding for the three national institutions that have underpinned science and technology (S&T) and what advantage the US still has.
China is outpacing the US in the volume of high-impact research in 57 of the 64 critical technologies in ASPI’s Critical Technology Tracker. The US’s main remaining advantage is downstream in implementing technology, and even that’s at risk as China’s significant S&T investments pay off.
Now the US’s lead may disappear even faster following cuts to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Aeronautics and Space Agency (NASA) and National Science Foundation (NSF).
The NIH is the biggest public funder of biomedical research worldwide and impacts global health in ways often taken for granted. For example, it supported the foundational work that led to the Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine which, by some estimates, prevented 1.2 million infant deaths between 2000 and 2015. NASA is a stalwart of space research and inadvertently has contributed to medical innovations as it has attended to the health of its astronauts, such as the ear thermometer. The NSF funds all non-medical scientific research (biology, quantum computing, artificial intelligence, space and advanced materials) in the US and manages major research facilities.
The NIH stands to lose $4 billion out of the $32 billion already allocated to US research grants in 2024. This $4 billion cut is not just 11.4 percent of the NIH’s research grants; it will also limit its ability to cover indirect costs associated with equipment, maintenance, safety and personnel—everything that keeps world-class research facilities ticking.
According to The New York Times, indirect costs make up 29 percent of grant funds on average. With only 85 out of 613 institutions having indirect costs below 15 percent, a decision to cap indirect costs at 15 percent will at least halve the funds for maintaining labs for most NIH grant recipients.
If you are a grand-slam-winning tennis champion, these indirect costs are akin to the payments for your team of coaches, strategists, medical entourage, all your equipment and access to training facilities. Without these, you won’t stay at number one. It’s the same in the critical technology race.
