White House plan for a ‘golden age’ of science ignores the structures that made the US a scientific superpower

The White House's report, titled "Science: A New Golden Age," proposes significant changes to U.S. science policy, asserting that the country's approach to scientific leadership has become outdated. This agenda, authored by Michael Kratsios, serves as director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, appears to prioritize individual researchers over institutional structures and to accelerate the translation of discoveries into economic and technological benefits.

Supporters of the report argue that it is a critical step towards modernizing American science policy, while critics contend that it fails to adequately consider the role played by universities, research laboratories, and federal agencies in fostering and maintaining U.S. scientific leadership.

The success of American scientific leadership over the past 80 years can be attributed to an effective strategy that allocated federal funding to universities, national laboratories, government agencies, and industry, which have subsequently resulted in advancements in various fields such as health, prosperity, quality of life, and national security. Technologies such as GPS navigation, weather forecasting, cancer therapies, and cellular communications all rely on scientific discoveries.

The report comes at a time when the United States is facing increasing competition from China in the scientific and technological arenas. While the report does acknowledge several hurdles, such as administrative burdens on researchers, the need to enhance technology transfer, and the transformative impact of artificial intelligence on research and innovation, it does not seem to sufficiently address the underlying structures and institutions that fostered American scientific leadership in the first place.

The debate surrounding the report highlights an essential question – what led to American scientific leadership, and what measures must be taken to ensure its longevity? The United States' scientific superiority did not emerge inadvertently. It was built upon a robust framework that facilitated the creation of new knowledge and the development of new talent through the complementary roles played by government, universities, and industry.

Federal investment in research, scientific talent, university education, and the transformation of discoveries into products and services by the industry laid the foundation for innovations ranging from microelectronics and biotechnology to the internet. This success is measurable not only in terms of groundbreaking discoveries but also in the resulting outcomes: scientific leadership, a highly skilled workforce, innovation clusters around universities, jobs, and long-term economic growth.

Critics argue that the current report overlooks the essential role that universities, laboratories, and federal agencies play in creating and sustaining long-term innovation, which is not solely dependent on isolated projects. Instead, it emphasizes a system in which these institutions function as interconnected components, each contributing to the overall growth and advancement of scientific fields.

Universities, for instance, educate future scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs, maintain specialized infrastructure, generate new knowledge, and foster scientific communities that accelerate discovery. They also play an indispensable role in ensuring the continuity of scientific leadership by nurturing future talent and maintaining the capacity for innovation.