TARGETING SCIENCEWhite House Plan for a “Golden Age” of Science Ignores the Structures That Made the U.S. a Scientific Superpower
A new White House report argues that the model which has governed eight decades of U.S. science policy, and which has helped make the United States the world’s scientific leader, requires significant reform. It is not that the report’s heavy emphasis on innovation, commercialization, and technology deployment is wrong: it is that it misses the main point, which is how the capacity for future innovation is created and sustained.
A new White House report argues that eight decades of science policy that helped make the United States the world’s scientific leader is too bureaucratic, too focused on institutions rather than individual researchers, and too slow to translate discoveries into economic and technological advantages.
Supporters see it as a needed modernization of American science policy. Others argue that it places insufficient emphasis on the universities, laboratories and federal agencies that enable and sustain U.S. scientific leadership.
Research affects health, prosperity, quality of life and national security. The technologies that shape modern life, from GPS navigation and weather forecasting to cancer therapies and cellular communications, all rely on scientific discovery.
The debate raises a broader question: What created American scientific leadership in the first place, and what will be required to sustain it?
U.S. Didn’t Become a Scientific Leader by Accident
During World War II, Vannevar Bush, who coordinated much of the nation’s wartime research effort, led federal programs that created new technologies such as radar and mass-produced penicillin. In 1944, President Franklin Roosevelt asked Bush to develop a blueprint for how science could contribute to national health, economic prosperity and job creation after the war.
Bush’s 1945 report, Science: The Endless Frontier, established a framework in which government, universities and industry played complementary roles. The federal government would invest in research and scientific talent. Universities would perform research while educating future scientists and engineers. Industry would transform discoveries into products and services.
The model worked.
The postwar research system laid the foundation for innovations ranging from microelectronics and biotechnology to the internet. Its success can be measured not only in discoveries but also in outcomes: scientific leadership, a highly skilled workforce, innovation clusters of new firms centered on universities that discover new knowledge via research, jobs and long-term economic growth.
The United States did not become a scientific superpower by chance. It built institutions that repeatedly generated both new knowledge and new talent.
Why Rethink the System Now?
The Trump administration’s July 2026 report, Science: A New Golden Age, argues that American science policy requires significant reform.
Having spent much of my career at the intersection of scientific research, research management and science policy, I believe that the report raises several important issues that deserve attention. Administrative burden on researchers is real. Technology transfer could be improved. Artificial intelligence is transforming research and innovation. China’s rise as a scientific and technological competitor presents a genuine strategic challenge.
