New presidential administrations always bring change. Policies are adjusted, budgets are rewritten, and priorities are shifted. However, strong and steady investment in science should stand above frantic and broad policy changes, as well as party lines. Since before World War II, federal research support has been driven not by politics, but by a commitment to building the foundations of our nation’s strength.
Abandoning so many commitments in science and innovation now would be disastrous. Regardless of party, science policy rarely gets the same attention from voters as other topics. The impact of science funding can seem uncertain, and the associated benefits may take years to appear. This makes it easier for politicians to lump it into “non-essential” government spending cuts.
At times, science policy can be politicized when officials ideologically tie it to other topics like climate change or healthcare. That said, today’s cuts are sweeping and irresponsible, with countless programs canceled midstream, indirect funding cut off and grant renewals ignored.
Compared to other large categories of government spending, science should be treated differently. Government agencies like the National Institutes of Health, NASA and the Department of Energy represent the biggest source of funding for basic research, providing grants to university labs, hospitals and research institutions nationwide. Steady government investment through these agencies is critical to achieving breakthroughs otherwise improbable, from developing new energy technologies to mapping the human genome.
As Isaac Newton once wrote, “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” Every major discovery we celebrate today stands on years upon years of work funded steadily across many presidential administrations. Even when focused on the economy, job creation, innovation or national defense, presidents have recognized that science funding produces returns for every American.
Stanford economist Charles Jones cites social returns from research and development at between 30% and 100%. Per United for Medical Research, every $1 invested in the NIH generates about $2.56 in economic activity. Moreover, federally funded research is tied to over 400,000 jobs in critical industries like biotechnology, aerospace and computer science.
Enzo Martines ’26 put it, “Blanket cuts to science funding don’t make sense considering the impact to the economy and innovation.”
As part of his record-long speech from the Senate floor, Senator Cory Booker recently warned that science cuts would mean “losing the momentum of research and causing deep and lasting loss of educational resources.” That loss is felt by Democrats and Republicans alike, and rebuilding could take decades.
Luke Londono ’26 commented, “If we don’t fund science, we’re cutting off what’s possible for us and future generations.”
Science policy should not be lumped together with broader budget debates. Science and technology are uniquely important for the safety and stability of the nation. In a divided political climate, science policy should be one of the priorities that unites us. It leads to faster cures, and advances our economy. The protection of that investment should be something all of our leaders, regardless of political affiliation, stand behind.
