Trump Administration's Science Agenda Prioritizes 'Big Bold Bets' and Tackles Perceived Politicization

The current administration strongly rejects the label of being 'anti-science,' emphasizing the recent release of its report, 'Science: A New Golden Age.' Michael Kratsios, a representative of the administration, expressed pride in this report, stating, "It is not anti-science. I think, uh, one of the things that I'm most proud of is the release of a new report a couple weeks ago called Science, a new golden age." He argues that the scientific community has become "deeply and deeply politicized" over the past 15 to 20 years, asserting the administration's commitment to empowering scientists to focus on the "hardest problems."

The administration views the politicization of science, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, as a significant departure from the core scientific method. Kratsios criticized the notion that disagreeing with specific figures automatically equates to being 'anti-science,' stating, "it really crescendoed and peaked in in COVID where um suddenly, you know, there was a certain individual that if you didn't agree with what he said, then suddenly you were anti-science. Uh and and to me, I think I think that is the that that is the most anti-science conclusion you you could ever make." He advocates for a return to constant inquiry and the rigorous questioning of conclusions as fundamental to true scientific progress.

The administration alleges that a substantial portion of National Science Foundation (NSF) grants under the previous administration was diverted from 'hard science' to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)-related initiatives. According to an analysis by Senator Ted Cruz's committee, Kratsios claims, "roughly one quarter or 25% of grants at NSF during that time period went towards DEI related quote unquote science. And if you think about that, that's an astronomical amount. That is roughly $2 billion a year times four years. That's $8 billion of science funding that went to these DI related initiatives." This redirection of funds and DEI-based grant requirements are characterized by the administration as further examples of the politicization of science, detracting from core research priorities.

The current administration's energy policy is shifting its focus from climate regulation to actively investing in technologies that promise abundant and affordable energy. Kratsios stated, "we want to be investing in the technologies and the science which are ultimately going to create abundant energy for Americans." This approach prioritizes research and development in areas such as fusion power, aiming to address global energy needs rather than solely focusing on domestic carbon reduction targets. The strategy reflects a broader goal of ensuring long-term energy security and affordability for the nation.

Despite significant increases in research funding, the United States is facing concerns about the stagnation of scientific progress, a phenomenon sometimes referred to as 'Eroom's Law.' Kratsios explained, "people call it heir's law it's like Moore's law in reversed it's fallen roughly 80fold since 1950 50 in terms of outcomes per dollar spent." This concept highlights that while funding for institutions like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has tripled since 1998, a proportional increase in groundbreaking discoveries has not materialized. Eroom's Law describes a reverse Moore's Law, where research efficiency effectively halves every nine years, suggesting systemic issues within the scientific funding and research ecosystem.

To counter the tendency of peer review boards to favor safe, low-risk research, the National Science Foundation (NSF) plans to introduce a new initiative called 'golden tickets.' Kratsios explained the concept: "one thing that that we're going to be testing at at National Science Foundation is a concept called golden tickets where each of the evaluators are going to be given one or two or three golden tickets." These tickets will empower individual reviewers to unilaterally fund high-risk, bold projects that might otherwise be overlooked. This model is inspired by the power law dynamics seen in venture capital, where a few high-risk breakthroughs are essential for generating significant returns, aiming to inject more innovative, transformative research into the scientific landscape.

The administration advocates for the government to play a renewed role in making 'Big Bold Bets' in scientific research, distinguishing between basic pre-competitive R&D and commercial projects. Kratsios stated, "what we advocate for and argue in in science new golden age is that we have lost our way on doing that. ... Not that's the only thing we should do, but that should be one of the things we do." This includes ambitious goals such as targeting a Moon landing by 2028 and achieving fusion energy by 2035. Additionally, the Genesis mission aims to double scientific output through the application of artificial intelligence, reflecting a strategy to re-engage government in foundational, transformative research that private industry may be hesitant to undertake due to high risk or long timelines.

The administration defends the decentralized structure of its science agencies, viewing it as a strength rather than a weakness. Kratsios stated, "I honestly think it's a feature and it's not a bug. And I think the alternative to an extreme is kind of what the PRC or what China is doing." He argued against consolidating science agencies, pointing to examples like China's inability to master EUV lithography despite its top-down control. This perspective frames competition and a free-market approach to scientific endeavors as a 'feature, not a bug,' suggesting it fosters innovation more effectively than centralized planning.

The scientific funding model established after World War II, based on Vannevar Bush's 1945 report 'Science, The Endless Frontier,' is now considered outdated. Kratsios reflected, "So, if you kind of rewind history back in in 1945, uh World War II was ending. Vanver Bush who was sort of the science adviser had my role for for FDR... what Bush proposed was essentially the system that we have today... is that still as relevant today as it was then? And our answer is it's not and we need a refresh." Historically, government-funded basic research at universities was the norm, with the government accounting for 70% of R&D funding. Today, that ratio has inverted, with 70% of R&D funded by the private sector, necessitating a significant overhaul of the existing framework to meet contemporary challenges.

The administration disagrees with the notion that all discovery science holds equal importance, asserting that the government must prioritize strategic national interests in its funding decisions. Kratsios stated, "I think we would say like no we disagree like the government is a set of elected individuals um congress has a very strong opinion about where we should spend money and they direct science funding all the time through their appropriations and the executive branch should have some sort of thesis about what's important for the country." This means Congress and the executive branch should define strategic priorities, emphasizing key areas such as artificial intelligence, quantum computing, nuclear technology, and biotechnology, ensuring that scientific investments align with national security and economic competitiveness.

The administration critiques China's long-standing 'playbook' for economic and technological advancement, which it describes as systematically undermining foreign innovation. Kratsios explained, "The playbook that they have used for a long time is essentially copying our IP, creating cheaper alternatives of that particular technology, dumping them in the United States, getting our businesses to go out of business and then and then squeezing us." This strategy involves copying intellectual property, manufacturing cheaper alternatives, and then flooding international markets, particularly the United States, with these products. The ultimate goal, as alleged, is to force American competitors out of business and establish market dominance.

A significant demographic shift in US STEM talent poses a fundamental challenge to national superpower status, particularly concerning PhD recipients in computer science. Kratsios noted, "If you if you rewind the clock, you know, 30 years, I think it was, you know, 70% were American and 30% were foreign. And now it's now it's inverted." This statistic indicates that the percentage of US-born PhD recipients in STEM fields has flipped, with foreign-born individuals now comprising the majority. Many of these foreign PhD recipients often return to their home countries, including China, due to a lack of effective US retention programs, leading Kratsios to identify a robust STEM-literate workforce as essential for national strength and a critical area for improvement.

The debate over merit-based metrics and academic standards is intensifying, particularly highlighted by policy changes at institutions like the University of California. One of the hosts on the 'All-In Podcast' stated, "There's this battle right now at the University of California on SAT scores. The professors are all saying we got kids coming in and they can't and we have to do remedial math to teach them how to do math at UC Berkeley." Since UC Berkeley stopped using SAT scores for admissions, professors have reported an increasing need for remedial math courses for incoming students. The panel collectively agreed that such policies risk harming the development of a high-quality STEM pipeline, potentially compromising the foundational skills necessary for advanced scientific and technological pursuits.

Michael Kratsios asserts that Dr. Anthony Fauci caused significant damage to public trust in science, more than anyone else in modern history. Kratsios argued, "I think, you know, he did more disservice to science than than anyone in modern history. you know, when he is advocating for positions like, you know, students need to be masked in schools, when um societies, you know, you know, the pediatric societies are putting out letters saying, you0 know, um it's okay for people to go out um and and collectively protest, but they're not allowed to, you know, go see their dying grandmother in a hospital. you know, no regular median American can listen to that and and then take science seriously." He pointed to contradictory COVID-era policies, such as mandating masks in schools while permitting public protests, as examples that eroded public credibility. Kratsios emphasized that healing public trust requires a return to 'gold standard' science, free from political dogma and inconsistency.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is facing a significant challenge due to an aging workforce, which could impede future research and innovation. According to Kratsios, drawing on data from Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, "the median age of an intramural researcher at NIH is 71 years old." This high median age indicates a critical need to re-engage and attract younger scientists into the field. The stagnation of the NIH workforce is seen as a barrier to dynamic progress, underscoring the urgency of implementing strategies to rejuvenate the research pipeline and ensure a continuous flow of fresh talent and ideas into vital scientific endeavors.

A key strategy for the long-term adoption of science policy reforms involves building nonpartisan momentum, focusing on the inherent nonpartisan nature of scientific progress. Kratsios expressed optimism, stating, "I think the first thing which I'm very optimistic about is most of the recommendations that are in golden age are are very very nonpartisan or bipartisan. I think the idea of like rethinking about the methods by which we deploy science capital and try to fund different institutions and promote individual scientists are all things that I think will be uniformally sort of accepted." The goal is to reframe science funding around national mission rather than state-level politics, aiming to prove the effectiveness of proposed reforms over the next two years. This approach seeks to lock in enduring changes by demonstrating clear, widely beneficial outcomes that transcend political divides.