Proposed cuts in the funding of science research, of the sort happening at Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences in Boothbay, Maine, would have profound consequences for our future. Photo: Courtesy Bigelow Labs
Think about all the kids in your life. Your kids, your grandkids, your great grandkids, or the kids in your neighborhood. Then, imagine every fifth child gone. That’s where the United States was in 1900, says Dr. Deborah Bronk, a research scientist and president and CEO of the Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences in Boothbay, Maine. Back then, one out of every five children born in the country didn’t make it to their 5th birthday. Now most kids do, largely because of science, says Bronk.
The study of microbes and hygiene, the development of life-saving vaccines and safer technologies, has created relative health, security, and abundance. The country now enjoys a gross domestic product of $27 trillion, with almost 70% of that related to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics industries.
But if the Trump administration were to have its way, it would all be in jeopardy. Last year, it proposed dramatically scaling back funding for science. And that reduction would likely have grave implications for health, technology, defense, education, and the United States’ standing in the world. This month, Congress reversed some of Trump’s deep cuts to science, leaving some cuts still in place.
Recently, Dr. Bronk visited CLF to discuss the potentially dire consequences of the country’s backslide on science investment. Her remarks were made before Congress made its reversal. We have adapted her talk here into a Q&A format, edited for length and clarity.
CLF: Aside from helping to prevent and cure disease, our country’s investment in science research has resulted in lives that are safer, cleaner, and more convenient than ever before. The internet exists thanks to federal investment in science research. So does the iPhone and the mapping of the human genome. STEM jobs (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) are some of the country’s best-paying jobs, and American technology companies now drive the economy. How else has science helped us?
Bronk: In addition to what science does for us economically, it also underpins our military. And it’s been doing this ever since the Second World War. During the Second World War, science was a major reason why the Allies won. And this was a major growth period, especially for oceanography. We didn’t land in Normandy without having a whole lot to figure out very quickly as a nation in ocean science. So it was really the birth of ocean science as a large discipline within the United States. It was a major reason why we won that war.
Then came Sputnik. Sputnik was the first low Earth orbit satellite launched by the Soviet Union. And that really started the space race. We succeeded in that space race when Apollo 11 landed Neil Armstrong on the surface of the moon in 1969. And that, more than anything, really cemented the United States as a leader in science and technology globally.
CLF: How did science investment proceed from there?
Bronk: In the following decades, the United States built a very strategic ecosystem of science agencies that supported a broad swath of science in this country. And what did that cost us? What’s the fraction of the U.S. federal budget every year that is invested in research and development today? About 3% of the U.S. budget goes to research and development. And I would argue that that is the most important 3% of our budget.
CLF: What’s happening now in terms of science investment?
Bronk: Massive cuts have been proposed. The administration’s budget proposes a 40% cut to the National Institutes of Health, a 14% cut to the Department of Energy, a 47% cut to NASA, and a 57% cut to the National Science Foundation. These are massive cuts. This is almost a wholesale dismantling of some of these science agencies.
Thousands of scientists have lost their jobs across federal agencies. Actually, we could probably say tens of thousands, and possibly multiple tens of thousands, at this point across federal agencies, universities, national labs, and independent research institutes. We are facing a crisis in the loss of scientific talent in this country.We are seeing decisions being made by political appointees. And this is a great concern. There’s an executive order that wants to place political appointees within all the federal agencies, who will have to approve funding decisions.
Currently, websites and data are disappearing. In a field like oceanography, where this country has invested hundreds of millions of dollars over the last several decades, accumulating environmental data from around the world, that data is now disappearing from websites. These are data that the taxpayers paid for, and now we’re losing access to them.
CLF: You have said the saddest part of this regression in science is that students no longer see a future in science.
Bronk: Our students today, with aspirations to go into science, no longer see that as a viable future. And also, what should concern all of us is that other countries are taking the lead. They are following our playbook, which we have used so successfully since the Second World War, even as we are dismantling it. And they are moving ahead.
CLF: You believe cuts to science funding will slow the rate of scientific discovery and innovation. Meanwhile, other countries, like China, are ramping up spending on science. In 2023, China surpassed the U.S. in the number of STEM PhDs awarded (50,000 vs. 45,000). You also believe that the current crackdown on immigration also carries devastating ramifications for science innovation in the U.S. Why?
Bronk: One way that we differ from other countries is the number of scientists from other countries who work here. And that really started during and after the Second World War. Many famous physicists, like Einstein, were running from persecution. We welcomed them at that point, and that is part of the reason we were so successful as a country for so many years.
These people who come, this talent that comes to the United States, are some of our most impactful scientists. From 2000 to 2023, scientists working in the United States won 112 Nobel Prizes. Forty-five of those were born in other countries.
People that pick up and go to a new country bring a completely different frame of reference –that is so, so valuable.
CLF: So right now, diversity is a bad word, but diversity is a strategy when it comes to science and innovation, right?
Bronk: A young kid who grows up on a farm in Oklahoma and a rich kid who grows up in Manhattan are going to view things very differently. Now, add somebody who grew up in Nigeria and somebody who comes from Paris, and then you’ve got the kind of brain trust and community that can solve big problems. Just having Americans raised here fill all the jobs is not going to get us to the success we’ve had in the past.
CLF: What’s the solution to this backward slide?
The only way I see this changing is with a grassroots movement of people who care enough to go out and talk to others, and who care enough to show up, listen, and have a conversation. That’s the only way I see us getting out of it.
CLF: These cuts to science research make many of us feel powerless. What can concerned individuals do?
Bronk: Show up, ask questions, and vote. We need people to show up at town halls and ask questions. Ask representatives, senators, and candidates, “Do you support science? Where do you stand?”
And then vote to support science. Let your elected representatives know you support science and that you expect them to as well. Then, finally, support science organizations like CLF, like Bigelow. If we’re not your cup of tea, find a science organization that is and support them right now. This is a tough slog right now for the scientists in this country, and showing up for us and supporting us would mean the world.
