Photo credit: www.theguardian.com
Like many researchers around the globe, I arrived in the United States as a young adult, motivated by dreams and aspirations. My journey began with just two suitcases and a limited amount of cash to cover my initial month’s rent for a modest apartment. However, I also carried a significant opportunity: the chance to work and receive training in one of the leading biomedical research labs in the country, allowing me to contribute to the advancements in modern biological sciences.
Over the years, I fully integrated into the American scientific community, establishing a family and eventually leading a research lab at one of the nation’s prestigious universities. As a member of the National Academy of Sciences, I can attest that from a scientific standpoint, I have experienced what many consider the American dream.
My experiences are not atypical; countless renowned scientists flock to the United States, joining many native-born Americans dedicated to scientific careers. This allure stems from the unique appreciation for unrestricted scientific exploration that characterizes the U.S. Compared to other nations, the U.S. provides ample resources, fostering a culture rich in innovation and enthusiasm for scientific inquiry.
In essence, the U.S. stands as an unparalleled environment for bright and driven individuals to uncover new knowledge, enhance our understanding, and ultimately improve human lives. This reality is evident in various metrics, showing that the U.S. dominates global science. For instance, twenty out of the world’s top thirty universities are located in the U.S., the vast majority of Nobel Prizes in scientific fields are awarded to American researchers, and half of the world’s new medicines originate here. When the term “American exceptionalism” is discussed, scientists are particularly aware of its implications.
A large portion of foundational scientific research in the U.S. is financed by taxpayers, via organizations such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation. These entities provide essential grants to universities and research institutions, which support scientific infrastructure, pay compensation to researchers, and fund targeted scientific projects. Although philanthropic contributions play a role, they remain far behind federal funding in terms of overall impact.
Public funding for science is critical since many scientific pursuits lack immediate commercial viability, with fundamental research seldom stemming from the private sector. Furthermore, science inherently relies on experimental trials that push the boundaries of current knowledge, leading to unpredictable outcomes. Thus, science, in many respects, is marked by inefficiencies.
Yet, this very process is essential for generating the basic knowledge needed to drive advancements in technology and healthcare, ultimately contributing to humanity’s welfare. The insights gained from taxpayer-supported science are foundational to the spirit of American innovation and its exceptional status on the world stage.
The remarkable achievements of American science make the current threats it faces particularly alarming. The public investment that has propelled American scientific success leaves it vulnerable to fluctuations in political support.
Historically, political factions from both the left and right have recognized the societal benefits of scientific research, generally supporting public funding. Yet, this consensus appears to be unraveling.
At present, American science is experiencing significant setbacks. Current funding for ongoing research projects is being withheld by the new administration, and executive orders lacking solid legal backing threaten to reduce financial support severely. Some research teams have already had to let go of staff and discontinue training programs for budding scientists due to the retraction of previously promised funds. Many more will be forced to follow suit in the near future as grant funding continues to be denied.
Numerous graduate science programs are now unwilling to accept new students, are retracting accepted offers, or are slashing enrollment numbers significantly. The scientific workforce is facing severe downsizing, with reports indicating that the withholding of scientific funding is not only targeted at high-profile institutions but pervasive across nearly every biomedical research organization in the U.S. This threatens the nation’s capacity for scientific inquiry and its ability to attract and retain talent in the field.
In addition to financial cutbacks, American science is facing challenges from new leadership that seems misaligned with the core values and importance of science. Whereas previous administrations appointed respected scientists and experienced administrators, the current leadership has included figures who lack meaningful accomplishments and are instead known for controversial statements and questionable scientific backgrounds.
These leaders are now focusing on eliminating essential scientific initiatives. They have mandated that NIH grant proposals undergo scrutiny based on arbitrary criteria pertaining to specific scientific terminology. For instance, promising studies related to certain vaccine technologies are being dismissed purely on the whims of those in power, culminating in the cancellation of programs dedicated to enhancing preparedness for future pandemics.
For example, a peer-reviewed NIH project from my lab aimed at improving vaccine efficacy has been stopped without scientific rationale. Instead, the current leadership will pursue studies aligned with their preferences, even though the questions they are addressing have already been settled, often led by individuals known for their bias.
Recently, we have witnessed the dismissal of esteemed scientists from the NIH, including those holding significant administrative roles. This approach indicates a worrying trend away from established scientific practices and leadership norms. The U.S. scientific community is entering a phase reminiscent of the Lysenko period during the Soviet era.
While the immediate consequences of diminishing scientific support may not be felt by non-scientists, the long-term effects on future generations could be severe. Economic growth heavily relies on advancements in science and if the U.S. fails to maintain its leadership in this arena, other nations will inevitably step into that role. Reflecting on past scientific breakthroughs, the relatively recent increase in child survival rates in America can largely be attributed to groundbreaking discoveries from years gone by.
If we persist on the current destructive trajectory set by the administration, future generations may miss out on life-saving medications and transformative technologies that would have ensured the country’s prosperity. Moreover, sustainable solutions for energy production, which would minimize environmental harm, could be neglected. Ultimately, a failure to support scientific progress may lead to shorter, unhealthier, and less affluent futures for American citizens. While science may not singularly define the greatness of the U.S., it is undoubtedly a foundational pillar of American exceptionalism, and it is currently under threat.
Source
www.theguardian.com