SOCORRO, NM – 1999: These twenty -seven mobile antennas, known as the very large array (VLA), get … more
This week, Science The magazine mentioned the latest development in a growing standard of political disorder in American science: The National Science Foundation (NSF) is By eliminating all 37 of his research departmentsRestructuring the grant process, dismissing staff and cancellation of more than $ 1 billion in already-dedicated grants. Changes follow the resignation by director Sethuraman Panhanathan and coincides with a proposed 55% reduction in the organization’s budget.
This is not a reform. It is a disassembly.
Restructuring is widely regarded in response to the political pressure of the executive sector, reflecting a broader attempt Align funding federal science with emerging ideological priorities. In addition to research associated with diversity, areas such as climate science, vaccination, HIV/AIDS and Covid -9 have all have face deep cuts. This shift has raised concerns in the scientific community about the possible shift of the field of application and the consequences for academic freedom and innovation. The economic consequences of limiting scientific research on this scale could be extensive.
The Foundation authorizing the US Scientific Company
For 75 years, the National Science Foundation was the quiet backbone of American scientific progress. It finances a significant share of all federal supported basic research outside the biomedical sphere, supporting discoveries in climate science, artificial intelligence, cyberspace safety and quantum materials among many others. His postgraduate students launch early career students and maintain an open, reproducible research that feeds US competitiveness. However, even when science is increasing more necessary, the federal share of basic research funding has declined for decades-while private sector investments have increased steadily.
Federal Government’s analogue investment in basic survey has declined … more
Now, the NSF is divided into an institutional level.
The elimination of NSF sections will remove a basic layer of object supervision from the grant process. The directors of division – scientists with deep expertise that today approve almost all funding decisions – will lose their power. Instead, a new layer of review, governed by officials who have not been named, can steal proposals for ideological compliance.
This is not the rationalization of bureaucracy. This is the concentration of control.
None of this is to deny that American science could benefit from change. Public research must serve the national interest. It should be transparent, open access and aligned with real social needs. Not every idea deserves federal support. But there are better ways of modernizing the research ecosystem by impressing data distribution, reinforcement of accountability, developing special programs and expanding capacity-even by excavating credible institutions and replacing them with opaque, politicized systems. We need a reform, but not this kind.
Derogatory science underestimates the economy
We must also be clear about the cost of disinvestment. Dallas’s Federal Reserve Bank-a number one party institution-reports that the Nondefense R&D government rendered long-term Financial Officers 150% to 300%And it represents about a quarter of the American growth growth since World War II. The authors, economists Andrew Fieldhouse and Karel Mertens come to the conclusion:
Therefore, our findings point out the incorrect distribution of public capital and the substantive under -reference to Nondefense R&D.
There is nothing wasted or elitist for public investment in science. On the contrary, it is one of the most credible factors of common well -being – not only institutions or industries, but also society as a whole. Now is the time to extend this commitment, not to withdraw from it.
A threatening brain leak will deepen the crisis
And when this investment fails, the consequences are not abstract. They appear in lost talents, missed opportunities and increasing scientific gaps. The US has long enjoyed a strategic advantage in global competition for scientific talent. But this advantage is eroded. The scientific journal Nature recently reported an increase American scientists looking for jobs abroadciting funding, political intervention and lack of institutional support. This is not just a brain leak – it is a system of systematic discomfort
The actual crisis in NSF is not ineffective or ideological shift. Is the abandonment of a national commitment to independent science. This commitment has made the US world leader in innovation, education and discovery. And now, in a moment of historical challenges – from pandemics and climate change to artificial intelligence and national security – we are pulling back.
The United States can and should improve the way it finances science. We can make the transparency, priority impact and community influence better. But these are discussions about an operating system. At the moment, the whole ecosystem of science is threatened.
NSF does not need to be disassembled. Its investments must be deepened and directed for long -term impacts.
This means the restoration of his departments, the protection of the revision by peer, the rebuilding of staff capacity and the confirmation of his independence. It means increasing the investment, without cutting it. And that means recognizing that science policy is not just about managing budgets – it is about shaping the future.
