By Wisberty J. Gordián Vélez
This is the second post on the big idea of the role of government funding in scientific research.
Knowledge and technologies that we often take for granted, such as the internet, Google search, global positioning system (GPS) devices and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), are the product of federal investments in research and development (R&D). Federally-supported research promotes innovation: 30% of issued patents rely on this support, which includes government-owned patents, patents citing federal funding, or patents citing other supported patents and research. Scientific and technological innovations account for most of the exponential growth in individual income since 1880. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we have benefited from vaccines developed in part thanks to decades of federally-supported research. The NIH also partnered with Moderna to develop their vaccine, and the Trump administration allocated billions of dollars to develop and manufacture vaccines. The science and technology (S&T) output of the country is directly tied to our individual and collective wellbeing, and the government plays an irreplaceable and necessary role in creating policies that determine what is achieved. In this blog, I explore federal funding of R&D and S&T policy in the U.S., and talk about this with Dr. Kenneth Evans, an S&T policy scholar at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy and a member of the project staff for a report by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences titled “The Perils of Complacency: America at a Tipping Point in Science & Engineering”.
The most important tool of the government in setting scientific policy is the funding requested by the President, appropriated by Congress, and managed by federal agencies. This funding involves grants, patent protections, seed funding, and subsidized loans and loan guarantees used by private businesses, academic institutions, and nonprofits for R&D. The federal government is second to private companies in funding total R&D, with $165 billion dollars appropriated in 2021, although it is the major source for basic research. Dr. Evans highlighted the importance of the government, saying that it “does, and will continue to do, the heavy lifting on research areas and infrastructure that have no immediate commercial or defense related utility”. Funding priorities for R&D “set themselves to an extent through the annual appropriations process, shifting political winds, and other immediate national needs”. Dr. Evans also noted the dependence of federal support on voter choices, as it embodies a “democratic process for funding decisions, made by elected leaders and carried out by peer review at agencies” in contrast to businesses and nonprofits. These elected officials also influence who does science and what type of research is pursued.
The U.S. has historically been the world leader in total R&D funding, but China is expected to catch up or surpass it soon after having an average annual growth rate of 17.3% from 2000 to 2017, relative to 4.3% in the U.S. While the total R&D expenditures were 3.06% of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) in 2019, an all-time high, the U.S. lags behind many countries in this metric. The federal share of total funding has also been decreasing from 25 to 21% since 2000 as businesses have ramped up their investments. The federal government spent 0.65% of GDP on R&D in 2019, while it spent 1.86% at its peak in 1964, and the governments of other countries, including China, South Korea, Norway, Germany and Sweden, have invested between 0.79 and 1.30%. Because of these funding disparities, concerns about supply chain independence, geopolitical competitiveness with China, and an interest in showing that our democratic institutions can work effectively when compared to autocratic systems, the level of federal funding for R&D in the U.S. has been in the headlines lately. In his first budget request, President Biden sought to increase federal R&D funding by 9%, which would increase basic and applied research funding 10% and 14%, respectively. His proposal also included increases of ~20% in the budget of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Science Foundation (NSF), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and a greater focus on health innovation, public health, and climate science. In June 2021, the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee considered the NSF for the Future Act, which intends to increase funding for the NSF by ~24% for fiscal year 2022, grow it at a 6% annual rate, promote STEM workforce training, and create a new directorate to support the translation of S&T. The Senate recently passed the bipartisan U.S. Innovation and Competition Act of 2021, which would provide ~$200 billion for research and innovation in critical areas to our economy as well as support our global leadership in S&T. It is encouraging to see R&D funding being addressed by lawmakers with such a level of attention. In fact, while there are significant debates between both political parties, lawmakers share a lot of common ground on the role of government in R&D. Dr. Evans noted several examples: (1) politicians from both parties have supported funding technology companies through direct assistance, tax credits, and low interest loans; (2) the continuity between the Trump and Biden administrations’ focus on competition with China in R&D and manufacturing; (3) total R&D spending steadily rising over the past four years by bipartisan votes. In the case of the American public, polls by the Pew Research Center and Research!America have indicated that a majority of Americans supports increasing federal funding of basic/medical research, engineering, and technology, viewing this as important for the economy and health innovation.
Despite these encouraging attitudes from voters and policymakers related to research funding, there have lately been threats to another crucial component of the S&T output of the country: scientific institutions and the role of science in policy-making. Attacks on science during the past years have included mismanagement and political interference in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, sidelining of scientific advice and reports of violations of scientific integrity, immigration bans affecting research in the U.S., rollbacks of regulations targeting climate change and the environment, and other examples (tracked by entities like the Union of Concerned Scientists). The rising political polarization and the events during the pandemic, particularly the combination of mixed messaging, rapidly changing information, misinformation and political interference in science, also affected the trust in science and scientific institutions. The percentage of Americans having a great deal or fair amount of confidence in scientists acting in the best interests of the public has been steadily increasing from 2016 to 2020, and other studies have shown stable public trust since 1973. Still, these data belie the partisan differences in this trust. For example, there is a 33 percentage point gap between Democrats and Republicans who have a great deal of confidence in scientists, and between January 2019 and November 2020, this metric increased for Democrats and decreased for Republicans. Similar gaps between the political left and right exist in other countries as well. Moreover, while both Democrats and Republicans have increased their support for greater federal spending in R&D since 2013, there is a gap of ~20 points between the two sides. A comparable gap also exists between liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans believing that these investments pay off in the long run.
The events of the past years have emphasized that, apart from having a robust national investment in R&D, science must be a key component of policy-making, funding decisions, and the implementation of our laws. In order to elevate S&T policy in the government, Dr. Evans endorsed the decision of President Biden to make the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) a member of the Cabinet. He noted the importance of a “strong relationship” between the directors and staff of OSTP and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), providing the necessary “platform and staffing” to the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), and the interagency work of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC). Another way to strengthen the profile of S&T policy would be to have more scientists as lawmakers. Dr. Evans believes there should be better mentoring at schools and universities and more training programs designed to show students how they can transition to a career in government. In addition, there needs to be more federal support for programs that strengthen our national STEM workforce by both improving the representation of “historically marginalized groups in STEM fields domestically” and “attracting top talent from overseas”. Still, while Dr. Evans believes this would result in policymakers having more expertise in S&T from the start, he thinks this is a “partial fix of a larger structural problem: a lack of immediate access to relevant expertise and timely, nonpartisan scientific data and analysis to help them make decisions”. This problem could be addressed by reinstating something analogous to the defunded Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), installing a Congressional Science Advisor, or strengthening and expanding the role of already established entities such as the Government Accountability Office (GAO) Science, Technology Assessment, and Analytics Team, the Congressional Research Service, and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The availability of this advice could facilitate the presence of passionate advocates for S&T goals in Congress even if they lack the formal background.
We also have to craft a strategy to advance S&T goals within an increasingly politically polarized country. Bridging this divide can be promoted by better protecting research and science-based policies from interference at the federal level. For example, near the start of his term, President Biden issued an executive order to assess political interference in science and evidence-based policy-making, review science advisory panels, and promote scientific integrity across government. Still, Dr. Evans believes that achieving true scientific integrity will likely require both continued pressure from the White House and other entities and passing new laws. Nevertheless, rather than completely running away from politics, Dr. Evans calls on us to recognize the political nature of science. Scientists in government should “recognize their own inherent values, the highly political context in which policy options are being deliberated and decisions are being made, and the limitations of scientific knowledge and data alone in crafting effective policy”. We can also make effective and unifying messages around science and federal support for R&D that make all voters see this as a high priority issue. This can be done by “telling stories” that connect “early-stage government-sponsored research to broader social improvements” and our daily lives. Political officials must also be truthful and transparent to help rebuild trust in scientific institutions. Dr. Evans also emphasized that we have to rethink how policymakers and scientists talk about science, by highlighting that “science is an iterative process where facts are continually updated based on research”. We should not be dismissive of questioning and skepticism by the public, which is in their right and can be a healthy endeavor, and we must avoid “treating science as a dogma”. We must earn the public’s trust by communicating the “uncertainty inherent in science” and being transparent about errors or violations of ethical or moral conduct. Trainees and scientists should also “understand the broader social and political contexts of their research” and should be incentivized to engage with people outside their fields.
We need scientific innovation to address the present and future crises we face as a country and a global community. News headlines have mentioned S&T and R&D with greater frequency as we grapple with a rapidly changing world in terms of the state of the economy, public health crises, our response to climate change, and geopolitical disputes. Local, state, and federal governments create and implement laws, regulations, and budgets in the S&T arena that ultimately influence and shape our daily lives, from the types of available jobs, the state of our physical infrastructure, the medical treatments we receive, and the technology we rely on. We have seen how directly the S&T output of the country is imbued with the government and politics, how essential it is to have honest leadership from elected officials, and how voters have a paramount role in choosing the officials that ultimately make decisions affecting S&T policy. These decisions can be corrupted by political interests, but, at the same time, they are inseparable from the political realities of the moment. Thus, we cannot overlook the role of the government and politics; rather, we are at an auspicious time to reconsider how much we elevate S&T and R&D, how much we invest and in what, and how we account for scientific advice and evidence in our decisions.
References:
1. Singer, P.L. Federally supported innovations: 22 examples of major technology advances that stem from federal research support. The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (2014). https://dc.mit.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/2014-federally-supported-innovations.pdf
2. Fleming, L., Greene, H., Li. G., Marx, M. & Yao, D. Government-funded research increasingly fuels innovation. Science 364, 1139-1141 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw2373
3. Press, W. H. What’s so special about science (and how much should we spend on it?). Science 342, 817-822 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.342.6160.817
4. Allen, A. For billion-dollar COVID vaccines, basic government-funded science laid the groundwork. Scientific American (2020). https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/for-billion-dollar-covid-vaccines-basic-government-funded-science-laid-the-groundwork/
5. Herman, B. The NIH claims joint ownership of Moderna’s coronavirus vaccine. Axios (2020). https://www.axios.com/moderna-nih-coronavirus-vaccine-ownership-agreements-22051c42-2dee-4b19-938d-099afd71f6a0.html
6. Operation Warp Speed: Accelerated COVID-19 vaccine development status and efforts to address manufacturing challenges. U.S. Government Accountability Office (2021). https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-319
7. The Perils of Complacency: America at the Tipping Point in Science & Engineering. American Academy of Arts & Sciences (2020). https://www.amacad.org/sites/default/files/publication/downloads/Perils-of-Complacency_Report-Brief_4.pdf
8. Budget of the U.S. Government Fiscal Year 2022. White House Office of Management and Budget (2021). https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/budget_fy22.pdf
9. Hourihan, M. Review of research & development in the final FY 2021 Omnibus. American Association for the Advancement of Science (2021). https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/2021-01/AAAS%20FY%202021%20Omnibus%20R%26D%20Summary%20.pdf
10. The state of U.S. science and engineering 2020: U.S. R&D performance and funding. National Science Foundation (2020). https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20201/u-s-r-d-performance-and-funding
11. Yong, E. Trump’s immigration ban is already harming American science. The Atlantic (2017). https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/01/trumps-immigration-ban-is-already-harming-americas-scientistsand-its-science/514859/
12. Mandavilli, A. Biden administration ends limits on use of fetal tissue for research. The New York Times (2021). https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/17/health/fetal-tissue-abortion-biden.html?action=click&module=Science%20%20Technology&pgtype=Homepage
13. The state of U.S. science and engineering 2020: Global R&D. National Science Foundation (2020). https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20201/global-r-d
14. Boroush, M. U.S. R&D increased by $51 billion, to $606 billion, in 2018; Estimate for 2019 indicates a further rise to $656 billion. National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (2021). https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf21324
15. Leonhard, D. An investment with a big return. The New York Times (2021). https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/08/briefing/investment-senate-china-bill.html
16. Sanger, D., Edmondson, C., McCabe, D. & Kaplan, T. Senate poised to pass huge industrial policy bill to counter China. The New York Times (2021). https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/07/us/politics/senate-china-semiconductors.html
17. Sanger, D. Biden defines his underlying challenge with China: “Prove democracy works”. The New York Times (2021). https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/26/us/politics/biden-china-democracy.html
18. Biden seeks big increases for science budgets. Science (2021). https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/05/biden-seeks-big-increases-science-budgets
19. Summary of the NSF for the Future Act of 2021. U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, & Technology (2021). https://science.house.gov/imo/media/doc/Summary_NSF%20for%20the%20Future%20Act.pdf
20. S. 1260 - United States Innovation and Competition Act of 2021. United States Congress (2021). https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/1260
21. S. 1260 cost estimate. Congressional Budget Office (2021). https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2021-05/s1260.pdf
22. Kinery, E. & Wingrove, J. Trump vows to sharply scale back U.S.-China economic ties. Bloomberg (2020). https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-07/trump-vows-to-sharply-scale-back-u-s-economic-ties-with-china
23. Fact sheet: The American Jobs Plan. The White House (2021). https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/03/31/fact-sheet-the-american-jobs-plan/
24. Historical trends in federal R&D. American Association for the Advancement of Science (2020). https://www.aaas.org/programs/r-d-budget-and-policy/historical-trends-federal-rd
25. Kennedy, B. Americans broadly favor government funding for medical and science research. Pew Research Center (2018). https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/07/03/americans-broadly-favor-government-funding-for-medical-and-science-research/
26. Americans agree that prioritizing research is essential to economic recovery. Research!America (2021). https://www.researchamerica.org/sites/default/files/PandemicRecoveyFeb2021.pdf
27. Stolberg. S. G. Trump’s former pandemic coordinator suggests that a restrained response may have cost hundreds of thousands of lives. The New York Times (2021). https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/03/28/world/covid-vaccine-coronavirus-cases#cnn-birx-fauci-giroir-interviews-trump
28. Diamond, D. Trump officials celebrated efforts to change CDC reports on coronavirus, emails show. The Washington Post (2021). https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/04/09/cdc-covid-political-interference/
29. Davenport, C. In the Trump administration, science is unwelcome. So is advice. The New York Times (2018). https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/09/climate/trump-administration-science.html
30. Friedman, L. E.P.A. to review attacks on science under Trump. The New York Times (2021). https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/24/climate/trump-science-epa.html
31. Stone, R. End of Trump’s “Muslim ban” a relief to researcher, but obstacles remain. Science (2021). https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/01/end-trump-s-muslim-ban-relief-researchers-obstacles-remain
32. Popovich, N., Albeck-Ripka, L. & Pierre-Louis, K. The Trump administration rolled back more than 100 environmental rules. Here’s the full list. The New York Times (2021). https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks-list.html
33. Attacks on science. Union of Concerned Scientists (2017). https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/attacks-on-science
34. Funk, C. Kennedy, B. & Johnson, C. Trust in medical scientists has grown in U.S., but mainly among Democrats. Pew Research Center (2020). https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/05/21/trust-in-medical-scientists-has-grown-in-u-s-but-mainly-among-democrats/
35. Cross, R. Will public trust in science survive the pandemic? Chemical & Engineering News (2021). https://cen.acs.org/policy/global-health/Will-public-trust-in-science-survive-the-pandemic/99/i3
36. Funk, C., Tyson, A., Kennedy, B. & Johnson, C. Science and scientists held in high esteem across global publics. Pew Research Center (2020). https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/09/29/science-and-scientists-held-in-high-esteem-across-global-publics/
37. Funk, C. Democrats more supportive than Republicans of federal spending for scientific research. Pew Research Center (2019). https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/09/04/democrats-more-supportive-than-republicans-of-federal-spending-for-scientific-research/
38. Memorandum on restoring trust in government through scientific integrity and evidence-based policymaking. The White House (2021). https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/27/memorandum-on-restoring-trust-in-government-through-scientific-integrity-and-evidence-based-policymaking/