Holden Thorp, editor-in-chief of Science, discusses the alarming cuts to funding at NIH and NSF that are crippling American science. Bhaven Sampat, a historian at Arizona State University, sheds light on the historical context of these reductions. Pierre Azoulay from MIT emphasizes the urgent need for reform to revitalize the American scientific ecosystem. The trio delves into the impact of political decisions on research productivity, the importance of federal support, and innovative funding models that could drive America back to the forefront of global research.
American science is facing unprecedented challenges due to significant budget cuts from the Trump administration targeting the NIH and NSF.
The NIH has historically been a cornerstone of American biomedical research, essential for funding studies that yield critical health advancements.
Despite increased funding for the NIH, a decline in disruptive scientific output suggests a productivity crisis stemming from bureaucratic issues.
Effective reform of American science requires collaborative efforts among universities, industry, and government to foster innovation and reduce political interference.
Deep dives
The Current State of American Science Funding
American science funding is currently facing a crisis, characterized by significant budget cuts proposed by the Trump administration to agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF). Proposed reductions of up to 40% for NIH and 50% for NSF threaten to destroy vital funding channels for researchers, subsequently risking the cessation of numerous clinical trials critical for advancements in health. As a result, many talented scientists are leaving the field due to political pressures against research that contradicts prevailing political narratives. This troubling trend raises serious questions about the future of scientific innovation and public health in the United States.
The Importance of the NIH and Science in Society
The NIH is recognized as a cornerstone of American biomedical research, playing a pivotal role in funding essential studies that lead to medical breakthroughs in areas such as cancer, diabetes, and various neurological disorders. Every dollar invested in NIH research yields an estimated five dollars in economic growth, showcasing the powerful return on investment that scientific funding provides. The historical importance of NIH is underscored by its contributions, further heightening the concern over proposed budget cuts which threaten to stifle ongoing and future research endeavors. The political motivations behind these spending cuts appear to be more punitive than beneficial, leading to a broader discussion on the health of American science as a collective societal investment.
Historical Context of American Research Institutions
The establishment of the NIH is deeply rooted in the historical context of World War II, when American scientists mobilized to support wartime efforts through increased government funding for scientific research. Key figures like Vannevar Bush championed the idea that university professors should lead scientific pursuits unimpeded by government agendas, an approach that led to the formation of a structured, federally funded research enterprise. This foundation allowed for the unprecedented growth of scientific inquiry in the U.S. post-war, yet long-term issues of bureaucracy and the aging demographics of principal investigators have become evident in recent decades. As the system evolves, the need for innovation and reform within the NIH has become imperative to ensure a steady influx of new talent and ideas.
Challenges in Scientific Productivity and Risk Aversion
Significant concerns have emerged regarding the productivity of the NIH, with a noted decline in the rate of disruptive scientific papers despite increases in overall funding. Many principal investigators find themselves dedicating excessive time to grant-related paperwork rather than active research, leading to frustration and diminishing innovative outcomes. Additionally, the culture of risk aversion in grant applications pushes researchers toward more conservative projects that are likely to yield published results, further entrenching a cycle of incrementalism within the scientific community. Addressing these challenges is crucial, requiring transformative thinking about the methods of funding and supporting research that encourages bold exploration and experimentation.
Proposed Solutions for Reforming the NIH
Reforming the NIH involves a multi-faceted approach that includes reevaluating the peer review process and exploring alternative funding models like the ARPA concept, which employs focused program managers. Insights suggest that funding individual scientists instead of specific projects can foster greater innovation and allow researchers the freedom to pursue high-risk, high-reward studies without the pressure of immediate results. Moreover, implementing a blend of randomized control trials to assess the efficacy of different funding approaches could lead to more effective science funding strategies. By transforming the incentives around scientific research, it may be possible to catalyze a new era of discovery that resonates with the original spirit of American scientific inquiry.
The Need for Collaborative Reform Structures
For effective reform to occur within American science, particularly at institutions like the NIH, there is a pressing need for a collaborative environment that transcends political and bureaucratic divides. The development of synergies between various research stakeholders, including universities, industry, and government entities, could lead to significant advancements in scientific innovation. Recent discussions emphasize the value of program managers akin to those at DARPA, who can assemble interdisciplinary teams to tackle complex challenges in research. Such structures may provide a pathway for transformational breakthroughs in health and technology while simultaneously avoiding the pitfalls of political interference in the ongoing pursuit of scientific truth.
The Future of Scientific Innovation
The future landscape of American scientific innovation hinges on recognizing the importance of preservation over destruction amid current funding battles. While the NIH faces significant challenges, including budget cuts and pressures from political agendas, there lies an opportunity to recalibrate the system for a more resilient and productive scientific community. The historical foundations of American science offer valuable lessons in adaptability, fostering an environment where genuine reform can occur rather than mere ideological conflicts. As society continues to confront pressing health and technological challenges, the imperative to revitalize and strengthen the American science system is clear and necessary for the future.
Today, we are witnessing an unprecedented assault on American science. Thousands of workers have been dismissed from the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. Billions of dollars are being cut from the NIH and NSF. Talented scientists are leaving the field (or leaving the country). Clinical trials and longitudinal studies are ending without explanation. Major research universities are under direct attack, with billions more dollars being withheld for political purposes.
Today, I want to do three things: First, I want to review what's happening to American science and why it’s so serious. Second, I want to explore how we got here—how the American science system works, and where it came from. And third, I want to discuss what a real reformist agenda for American science would look like.
So, for the first time, this is a triple-barreled podcast. First we speak to Holden Thorp, the editor-in-chief of Science and the prestigious Science journals. Second, we talk to Bhaven Sampat, a researcher and historian at Arizona State University, about the history of the NIH. And finally, we talk to Pierre Azoulay, a researcher at MIT, who has spent considerable time and energy studying how American science works and how it could work better.
If you have questions, observations, or ideas for future episodes, email us at PlainEnglish@Spotify.com.
Host: Derek Thompson
Guests: Holden Thorp, Bhaven Sampat and Pierre Azoulay
