National Academy of Sciences President Says U.S. Science Is Facing ‘Pessimistic’ Future, Urges Changes to Regain Leadership in Science
The report identified “triggers” that would lead to this pessimistic scenario — including budget cuts for science, attractive opportunities abroad that draw researchers away from the U.S., a tax environment that discourages industry R&D, and excessive regulations that divert time and energy away from research.
Most of these triggers are happening, McNutt explained. “Science budgets, particularly those that fund the academic research community, are slated for drastic reductions in order to fund tax breaks and other priorities.”
More-attractive opportunities abroad are also drawing away researchers from the U.S., said McNutt. “Uncertainties over the science budgets for next year, coupled with cancellations of billions of dollars of already hard-won research grants, is causing an exodus of researchers from the U.S.”
And excessive regulation that reduces research output “has been a fact of life for some time,” said McNutt. Sixty-two percent of all regulations imposed on researchers since 1991 have been issued in the last 10 years, she noted.
What are the real-world outcomes of this pessimistic scenario? According to the 2007 report, talent and investment will leave the U.S., the U.S. will lose out in global markets, and ultimately our standard of living will start dropping, McNutt said.
“We don’t want to wait until the U.S. standard of living starts to decrease to do something about this situation,” she emphasized. “We need to act now.”
Actions Needed to Rebuild U.S. Leadership
McNutt identified seven actions that should be taken to build on U.S. strengths, shore up weak areas, and regain the nation’s leadership in science.
Build on our culture of innovation. “One of my biggest concerns is that pending science budget reductions are going to lead to an overly conservative system of selecting projects to fund, resulting in little high-risk, high-reward research being funded,” said McNutt. Even now, strong competition for existing funds means that peer reviewers tend to look for reasons not to fund proposals, she pointed out.
We need a data-informed analysis of various approaches to proposal review, to ensure that truly innovative proposals are succeeding, said McNutt. “Peer review is not the only choice, but whether we modify peer review or use some other approach, it is important to fund innovation,” she said. “Any approach that we select should be based on evidence and expertise, not on opinion or ideology.”
Create a national research strategy. “No sensible businessperson would attempt to run a multibillion-dollar enterprise without a strategy, and yet that is exactly what we are doing with our research enterprise,” McNutt stated.
A U.S. strategy should include all research funders — government, industry, philanthropy, and others — and all of the performers of research to take advantage of both their individual strengths and their interdependence. A strategy also needs to accommodate both basic research and applied research for the public good that doesn’t have a profit motive. “That is where the government really needs to step in,” she said. “It is a national interest for its citizens to support that kind of research.”
Improve K-12 education. “I spoke about this one [in last year’s State of the Science address], and frankly it hasn’t gotten much better,” said McNutt. The need for stronger science education is not just about jobs, she explained. Science is so pervasive in our society that people need to be scientifically literate to make the right choices.
She talked about better approaches that should be adopted as soon as possible. For example, instead of teaching science as a set of facts, we should build on the innate curiosity of all children and teach them to be scientists by letting them loose to explore the world around them, using the scientific method, she said. Next, we need to mitigate very large class sizes for many teachers, as well as their discomfort with science curriculum. AI tools could help with the latter challenge.
Build the domestic STEM workforce. The U.S. is not developing enough STEM professionals to fill available jobs, and it’s becoming difficult to rely on immigration to do so, said McNutt.
As part of building the domestic workforce, we need to seriously rethink STEM paths to industry, she said. Typically, STEM students seeking advanced training are mostly funneled into a system intended to create basic researchers, and they may leave without the skills needed to work in industry. Now, some new programs are helping to give students those skills — such as business skills, or skills related to running clinical trials — and these programs should be expanded. We also need to improve basic research career pathways and “right size” labs for the number of jobs available, said McNutt.
In addition, the National Academies and other organizations have called for authorizing a new version of the National Defense Education Act, which was passed after the 1957 Soviet launch of Sputnik. The act created loans, scholarships, and funds for K-12 education, and it helped the U.S. reach the moon, said McNutt. “We are facing another Sputnik moment right now, and we have to invest in the people, the talent, and the institutions that are going to get us that next moonshot.”
Reduce red tape and expand processes. Of the time that researchers have to devote to research, more than 40% is spent on paperwork, said McNutt. And because of the cap on administrative costs, researchers can’t hand off this paperwork to university administrative staff. “This is a really poor use of researcher training, time, talent, and funding,” she said. We should rethink how to ensure regulatory compliance — for example, considering an audit approach, or using AI to fill out the majority of forms, which principal investigators could then review and sign.
Expand access to international resources. The U.S. retreat from international collaborations has been an unforced error, said McNutt. “There is no better time to do [these collaborations] than with the growing number of scientifically advanced nations and the growing cost of cutting-edge facilities.” She expressed worry that with current budget cuts, facilities’ budgets for ocean exploration, space exploration, and polar research are all going to be cut drastically. Without international collaboration and cooperation, U.S. research opportunities will erode.
Rebuild trust. We need to do this across the political spectrum, said McNutt. “I recall when science was a bipartisan issue, and we need to make it that again.” There has been some rebound in public trust in science after some unforced errors during the pandemic, she said, but unfortunately the rebound has not been uniform across the political spectrum.
We need to assure people that science is working for the benefit of all citizens, McNutt stressed. The most important thing scientists can do now is listen to everyday citizens and try to understand the issues people are confronting today. Scientists also need to share how science is working to address their problems. “Science offers hope for cures for what ails people, and the message we need to give is that funding science is funding hope — hope for the future.”
Watch the State of the Science address and the panel discussion that followed.
