This partisan disparity has raised concerns about the future of scientific research. But it’s unclear whether this difference in trust is reflected in differences between how Democrats and Republicans fund science.
After analyzing 40 years of data on federal funding for scientific research under Republican or Democratic leadership, a team led by Furnas and Dashun WangKellogg Chair in Technology and professor of Management and Organizations, found results that contradict common assumptions. Under Republican presidencies, or when the party controlled the House of Representatives, the government provided more funding for science and research.
“The narrative that Republicans are or have long been anti-scientists doesn’t seem to be true, at least by this measure and over this time period,” says Furnas.
However, the high level of science funding in the past may not necessarily translate into today’s landscape of sharp political polarization. In the first half of 2025, for example, the Trump administration and the Republican-led Congress approved or proposed sweeping budget cuts to key scientific research departments and institutions, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) – a marked shift from previous trends.
“What’s happening right now is a really strong break from the historically strong bipartisanship and strong Republican investment in science that has fueled an incredible amount of innovation and economic growth,” Furnas says. “A move away from that could threaten that prosperity.”
Defying expectations
The research team, which also included a Harvard Ph.D Nic Fishman and Leah Rosenstiel of Vanderbilt University, took a broad definition of science for their study.
They looked at funding not only for projects typically associated with scientific research, such as NASA and the CDC, but also any work that contributed to the creation of knowledge, such as developmental programs at the Department of Defense (DOD) and policy evaluations by the Congressional Budget Office.
They focused on funding provided from 1980 to 2020 through federal appropriations, which represent the bills passed by Congress and signed by the president that authorize funds for specific purposes and agencies in a given fiscal year. Publicly available data came from the US Budget Office’s Comparative Statements—which includes both proposed budgets and enacted bills—as well as congressional reports or statements released along with the passage of bills. (The study excluded funding that came from emergency measures, such as the 2009 stimulus act.)
In total, the data covered 171 federal appropriations accounts in 27 federal agencies related to scientific or research activity. This included both funds for government programs and contracts with private agencies.
Focusing on appropriations data allowed Wang, Furnas, and colleagues to assess federal science funding across all major spending categories (grants, private contracts, and in-house research). It also enabled them to track annual changes in funding and party control within the House, Senate and presidency.
Overall, the team found that Congress devoted more funding to science and research when the House of Representatives was controlled by Republicans than when it was controlled by Democrats. More funding also went to science and research under Republican presidents, although there were no significant differences in funding when Democrats or Republicans controlled the Senate.
Science and research-related funding was, on average, about $150 million higher annually per bill when Republicans controlled the House of Representatives and $100 million more when there was a Republican president.
Moreover, when Republicans controlled the House of Representatives, Congress not only approved more money for science funding, but also proposed more than Democrats did in the early stages of the appropriations process.
“We’re seeing this pattern, where the House is proposing more on science, in some of the earlier stages of the negotiation process and we see it in the end result,” says Furnas.
From CDC to DOD
The researchers also found that the partisan gap in science funding seemed to widen over time: when there was a Republican president, the government poured even more money into scientific research in 2001-2020 than it did in 1980-2000.
It’s worth noting that the Republicans’ greater financial commitment to science wasn’t simply the result of targeted spending on agencies and agencies like the DOD that their party has typically prioritized. Republican lawmakers in the House of Representatives have poured more money into scientific research at the CDC, NASA, NIH and NSF, for example, than Democratic lawmakers. And the proportion of funds distributed by Republicans to different areas of scientific research was relatively similar to the distribution under Democrats.
The one department that received more science funding under Democratic leadership was the Department of Energy, possibly because of the party’s growing interest in renewable energy, according to the researchers.
Extending their original analysis, the team looked at a subset of science funding — grants — using a different data set, only to reach a similar conclusion.
The 103 U.S. federal funders that offered science grants between 1952 and 2019 gave, on average, about $70 million more annually when Republicans controlled the House of Representatives than when Democrats were in control. But when Republicans controlled the Senate, funders distributed $45 million less in science grants each year.
“We don’t see big detectable differences in the research fields [partisans] come up with the financing,” says Furnas. “Thus, the main effect we found is likely not due to concentrated differences in one particular domain.”
A break from history
Although Republican lawmakers provided more funding for scientific research throughout the study, the researchers note that the findings do not imply that Democratic lawmakers have not valued or supported scientific research.
Both parties have historically believed that science is a good investment for government, Furnas says, “but one possible explanation for the finding that Democrats underfunded science may be because they have much more competing social priorities. They’re more interested in funding education.
In general, the research shows that both the total amount of science funding and the share of science funding in the total federal budget have either remained stable or increased over time, regardless of the political party in charge.
But recent changes in the political climate and funding priorities are poised to break this historic trend. A lack of consistent support or funding for science could limit the kind of scientific progress that has historically acted as a catalyst for growth and innovation in society, from the development of life-saving drugs to emerging technologies such as genetic artificial intelligence.
“Control over government institutions shifts back and forth between Democrats and Republicans over relatively short time horizons,” Furnas says. “But science requires long-term commitment and has long-term time horizons.”
“The fundamental tension between short-term political instability and the long-term stability required by science highlights a fundamental area of study at this science-policy interface,” says Wang, who also serves as director of CSSI and the Northwestern Innovation Institute and co-director of Ryan Institute on Complexity. “That’s what we’re focusing on now.”
