Congress’ failure so far to deliver on promise of tens of billions in new research spending threatens America’s long-term economic competitiveness
- Written by Jason Owen-Smith, Professor of Sociology, University of Michigan
Federal spending on fundamental scientific research is pivotal to America’s long-term economic competitiveness and growth. But less than two years after agreeing the U.S. needed to invest[1] tens of billions of dollars more in basic research than it had been, Congress is already seriously scaling back[2] its plans.
A package of funding bills recently passed by Congress and signed by President Joe Biden[3] on March 9, 2024, cuts the current fiscal year budget for the National Science Foundation[4], America’s premier basic science research agency, by over 8%[5] relative to last year. That puts the NSF’s current allocation US$6.6 billion below[6] targets Congress set in 2022.
And the president’s budget blueprint for the next fiscal year, released on March 11, doesn’t look much better. Even assuming his request for the NSF is fully funded, it would still, based on my calculations, leave the agency a total of $15 billion behind the plan Congress laid out to help the U.S. keep up with countries such as China that are rapidly increasing their science budgets[7].
I am a sociologist[8] who studies how research universities contribute to the public good[9]. I’m also the executive director of the Institute for Research on Innovation and Science[10], a national university consortium whose members share data that helps us understand, explain and work to amplify those benefits.
Our data shows how underfunding basic research, especially in high-priority areas, poses a real threat to the United States’ role as a leader in critical technology areas, forestalls innovation and makes it harder to recruit the skilled workers that high-tech companies need to succeed.
A promised investment
Less than two years ago, in August 2022, university researchers like me had reason to celebrate.
Congress had just passed the bipartisan CHIPS and Science Act[11]. The science part of the law promised one of the biggest federal investments[12] in the National Science Foundation[13] in its 74-year history.
The CHIPS act authorized US$81 billion for the agency, promised to double its budget by 2027 and directed it to “address societal, national, and geostrategic challenges for the benefit of all Americans[14]” by investing in research.
But there was one very big snag. The money still has to be appropriated by Congress every year. Lawmakers haven’t been good at doing that[15] recently. As lawmakers struggle to keep the lights on, fundamental research is quickly becoming a casualty of political dysfunction.
Research’s critical impact
That’s bad because fundamental research matters in more ways than you might expect.
For instance, the basic discoveries that made the COVID-19 vaccine possible[16] stretch back to the early 1960s[17]. Such research investments contribute to the health, wealth and well-being of society, support jobs and regional economies[18] and are vital to the U.S. economy and national security.
Lagging research investment will hurt U.S. leadership in critical technologies such as artificial intelligence, advanced communications, clean energy and biotechnology. Less support means less new research work gets done, fewer new researchers are trained and important new discoveries are made elsewhere.
But disrupting federal research funding also directly affects people’s jobs, lives and the economy[19].
Businesses nationwide thrive[20] by selling the goods and services – everything from pipettes and biological specimens to notebooks and plane tickets – that are necessary for research. Those vendors include high-tech startups, manufacturers, contractors and even Main Street businesses like your local hardware store. They employ your neighbors and friends and contribute to the economic health of your hometown[21] and the nation.
Nearly a third of the $10 billion in federal research funds that 26 of the universities in our consortium used in 2022 directly supported U.S. employers[22], including:
A Detroit welding shop that sells gases many labs use in experiments funded by the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Department of Defense and Department of Energy.
A Dallas-based construction company[23] that is building an advanced vaccine and drug development facility paid for by the Department of Health and Human Services.
More than a dozen Utah businesses, including surveyors, engineers and construction and trucking companies, working on a Department of Energy project[24] to develop breakthroughs in geothermal energy.
When Congress shortchanges basic research, it also damages businesses like these and people you might not usually associate with academic science and engineering. Construction and manufacturing companies earn more than $2 billion each year from federally funded research[25] done by our consortium’s members.
Jobs and innovation
Disrupting or decreasing research funding also slows the flow of STEM – science, technology, engineering and math – talent from universities to American businesses. Highly trained people are essential to corporate innovation[27] and to U.S. leadership in key fields, such as AI, where companies depend on hiring to secure research expertise[28].
In 2022, federal research grants paid wages for about 122,500 people at universities that shared data with my institute. More than half of them were students or trainees. Our data shows[29] that they go on to many types of jobs but are particularly important for leading tech companies such as Google, Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Intel.
That same data lets me estimate that over 300,000 people who worked at U.S. universities in 2022 were paid by federal research funds. Threats to federal research investments put academic jobs at risk. They also hurt private sector innovation because even the most successful companies need to hire people with expert research skills. Most people learn those skills by working on university research projects, and most of those projects are federally funded.
High stakes
If Congress doesn’t move to fund fundamental science research to meet CHIPS and Science Act targets – and make up for the $11.6 billion it’s already behind schedule – the long-term consequences for American competitiveness could be serious.
Over time, companies would see fewer skilled job candidates, and academic and corporate researchers would produce fewer discoveries. Fewer high-tech startups would mean slower economic growth. America would become less competitive in the age of AI. This would turn one of the fears that led lawmakers to pass the CHIPS and Science Act into a reality.
Ultimately, it’s up to lawmakers to decide whether to fulfill their promise to invest more in the research that supports jobs across the economy and in American innovation, competitiveness and economic growth. So far, that promise is looking pretty fragile.
This is an updated version of an article originally published[30] on Jan. 16, 2024.
References
- ^ agreeing the U.S. needed to invest (www.whitehouse.gov)
- ^ Congress is already seriously scaling back (www.politico.com)
- ^ signed by President Joe Biden (www.npr.org)
- ^ National Science Foundation (www.nsf.gov)
- ^ by over 8% (www.aibs.org)
- ^ US$6.6 billion below (www.politico.com)
- ^ rapidly increasing their science budgets (news.bloomberglaw.com)
- ^ I am a sociologist (public.websites.umich.edu)
- ^ research universities contribute to the public good (www.sup.org)
- ^ Institute for Research on Innovation and Science (iris.isr.umich.edu)
- ^ passed the bipartisan CHIPS and Science Act (www.whitehouse.gov)
- ^ one of the biggest federal investments (doi.org)
- ^ National Science Foundation (www.nsf.gov)
- ^ benefit of all Americans (www.congress.gov)
- ^ haven’t been good at doing that (www.hks.harvard.edu)
- ^ COVID-19 vaccine possible (www.nobelprize.org)
- ^ early 1960s (doi.org)
- ^ support jobs and regional economies (new.nsf.gov)
- ^ affects people’s jobs, lives and the economy (theconversation.com)
- ^ Businesses nationwide thrive (nyuscholars.nyu.edu)
- ^ economic health of your hometown (theconversation.com)
- ^ supported U.S. employers (irisweb.isr.umich.edu)
- ^ construction company (www.beckgroup.com)
- ^ Department of Energy project (utahforge.com)
- ^ federally funded research (irisweb.isr.umich.edu)
- ^ Hispanolistic/E+ via Getty Images (www.gettyimages.com)
- ^ corporate innovation (www.doi.org)
- ^ research expertise (www.aei.org)
- ^ Our data shows (irisweb.isr.umich.edu)
- ^ article originally published (theconversation.com)
Authors: Jason Owen-Smith, Professor of Sociology, University of Michigan
