{"id":1955,"date":"2026-07-23T15:05:46","date_gmt":"2026-07-23T15:05:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/bkbc.net\/index.php\/2026\/07\/23\/trumps-science-adviser-wants-to-overhaul-increasingly-calcified-u-s-science-enterprise-while-science-funding-lags\/"},"modified":"2026-07-23T15:05:46","modified_gmt":"2026-07-23T15:05:46","slug":"trumps-science-adviser-wants-to-overhaul-increasingly-calcified-u-s-science-enterprise-while-science-funding-lags","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bkbc.net\/index.php\/2026\/07\/23\/trumps-science-adviser-wants-to-overhaul-increasingly-calcified-u-s-science-enterprise-while-science-funding-lags\/","title":{"rendered":"Trump\u2019s Science Adviser Wants to Overhaul \u201cIncreasingly Calcified\u201d U.S. Science Enterprise While Science Funding Lags"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Black<\/figure>\n

body {background-color: #D2D1D5;}<\/p>\n

Research & Developments<\/span><\/strong><\/a> is a blog for brief updates that provide context for the flurry of news regarding law and policy changes that impact science and scientists today.<\/em><\/h4>\n

23 July: This article was updated to include comments from Jennifer Jones and Colette Delawalla.<\/em><\/p>\n

A report released this week<\/a> directs the U.S. government to spark a \u201cnew golden age\u201d of science by ushering funds toward artificial intelligence, fostering closer relationships with private industry, and dismantling and rebuilding the federal science funding process.<\/p>\n

The report was written by Michael Kratsios<\/a>, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. He outlined his recommendations to Congress at a hearing of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology on 22 July. <\/p>\n

Kratsios intended the report to emulate a letter written to President Franklin D. Roosevelt by Vannevar Bush in 1945, called Science, the Endless Frontier<\/em><\/a>, <\/em>which set the foundation for the current U.S. federal science process in which federal funds support university research. \u201cAs we celebrate the United States\u2019 250th anniversary, we have the responsibility to renew our foundations once more,\u201d he wrote.<\/p>\n

Kratsios listed four goals to guide this approach to U.S. science: to \u201cprioritize the individual scientist over legacy institutions,\u201d to \u201cfundamentally change how<\/em> research dollars are allocated, distributed, and assessed,\u201d to \u201cset clear scientific goals and build the industrial muscle to translate scientific discovery into technological strength,\u201d and to \u201cprepare our research enterprise for the AI revolution.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cIf you think about this report in the context of everything else this administration has done, it really is about weakening independence, weakening accountability, [and removing] scientific integrity protections in favor of empowering political appointees,\u201d\u00a0said Jennifer Jones<\/a>, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists.<\/p>\n

<\/object>Science-A-New-Golden-Age_Eos<\/a>Download<\/a><\/div>\n

The report recommends a handful of federal priorities to achieve these goals, including the Genesis Mission<\/a>, a \u201cnational effort to harness AI for scientific discovery at a scale no other nation can match\u201d led by the Department of Energy (DOE).<\/p>\n

At the 22 July hearing, Kratsios said the Genesis Mission<\/a> \u201cis the crown jewel of American AI for science\u201d and announced that federal agencies have committed<\/a> more than $5 billion to the project. So far, 278 awards have been made<\/a>, the largest being a three-year, $60 million grant for a project that will \u201chelp deliver nuclear facilities faster and safer\u201d with the use of AI, according to the DOE. <\/p>\n

\n
\n

\u201cThere\u2019s no mention of scientific integrity, no mention of protections for independence, it\u2019s just the opposite.\u201d <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n

\u201cThere are some examples in STEM where AI is valuable,\u201d such as increasing power in computational modeling or identifying new Earth-like planets at scale, for example, wrote Colette Delawalla, founder of science advocacy group Stand Up for Science<\/a>, in an email. \u201cBut AI will never replace curiosity-driven scientific advancement,\u201d she wrote.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Some scientists viewed the report as a way for the government to justify steering research funds toward private industry and increasing political interference in science. \u201cI think they\u2019re trying to turn it into a venture capital model,\u201d Jeremy M. Berg<\/a>, a computational biologist and former director of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences at the National Institutes of Health, told The New York Times<\/em><\/a>. <\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cUnder the hood,\u201d the report is a \u201cvision for faster technology development and commercialization while underinvesting in the fundamental research, expert peer review, and scientific workforce that make those advances possible,\u201d Keivan Stassun<\/a>, an astrophysicist and member of the National Science Board prior to its dissolution by the Trump administration<\/a>, told Science<\/em><\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

What\u2019s interesting about the report, Jones said, is what it doesn\u2019t mention. \u201cThere\u2019s no mention of scientific integrity, no mention of protections for independence, it\u2019s just the opposite,\u201d she said. \u201cThere are no clear systems of accountability\u201d explained in the report, and its suggestion to funnel funds to individual researchers rather than institutions such as universities also means more research could occur outside of universities\u2019 established and robust systems of accountability, she added.<\/p>\n

The recommendations in the document largely align with recommendations made by former National Academy of Sciences president Marcia McNutt in June. In the annual president\u2019s address<\/a>, McNutt encouraged the scientific community to \u201cbetter understand the needs of industry\u201d and embrace the use of AI to increase research efficiency. <\/p>\n

At the hearing, however, Kratsios agreed with Rep. Brian Babin (R-TX), chair of the committee, that the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine required more federal oversight, especially in light of its recent report on climate attribution science<\/a> that Babin said raised \u201ctransparency concerns.\u201d Kratsios said he looked forward to working with Congress to codify the recommendations made in the \u201cnew golden age\u201d report.<\/p>\n

Funding the Golden Age<\/strong><\/h3>\n

The vision the report presents is accompanied by recommendations from Kratsios and Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget, for the FY 2028 budget. These recommendations include prioritizing funding for physical sciences, including quantum physics, chemistry and materials sciences, mathematics and computer sciences, engineering, and biological sciences. <\/p>\n

For FY 2028, \u201cagencies should align their R&D investments, where appropriate, with the Administration\u2019s national missions,\u201d the report states, listing those \u201cnational missions\u201d as AI, quantum computing, fusion power, the construction of a lunar base and return of humans to the Moon, autonomous robotics, and semiconductor technology. <\/p>\n

\n
\n

 
Related<\/strong><\/h2>\n

\u2022  Read the Report: \u201cScience: A New Golden Age<\/a>\u201d
\u2022  Watch the Hearing: \u201cExamining the Priorities of the FY2027 Research and Technology Enterprise<\/a>\u201d<\/strong>
\u2022  Trump\u2019s Plan for Science: More Money for A.I., Less for Universities<\/a>
\u2022  Trump Administration Steers $5B Toward AI Research<\/a><\/strong>
\u2022  Get Involved: AGU Science Policy Action Center<\/a><\/strong><\/strong>
 <\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

At the 22 July hearing, Democrats argued that the Trump administration\u2019s actions have worked against the stated goals of Kratsios\u2019s report. \u201cBig new initiatives and promises mean nothing when agencies act capriciously, canceling grants midway, delaying awards for months, even after they’ve been selected through the rigorous merit review process, and blacklisting educational and research institutions,\u201d said Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA).<\/p>\n

The report did not mention the Trump administration\u2019s proposed FY 2027 budget<\/a>, which, if finalized, would reduce the National Science Foundation\u2019s budget by 53%, the U.S. Geological Survey\u2019s budget by 37%, the NASA science budget by 42%, and NOAA\u2019s budget by 28%.<\/p>\n

\u201cI anticipate the report will be used as the rationale for making further cuts in the budgets and staffing of federal research agencies while limiting their authority and accountability to the American people,\u201d Neal Lane<\/a>, former director of the NSF, told Science<\/em><\/a>. <\/em><\/p>\n

The report also did not mention recent sweeping cuts<\/a> to the NSF\u2019s FY 2026 budget, the fact that the NSF currently has no director, or a June proposal from the Office of Management and Budget<\/a> that, if finalized, would give political appointees final approval power for scientific grants.<\/p>\n

\u2014Grace van Deelen (@gvd.bsky.social<\/a>), Staff Writer<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

These updates are made possible through information from the scientific community. Do you have a story about how changes in law or policy are affecting scientists or research? Send us a tip at eos@agu.org<\/span><\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/h2>\n
\"A<\/a><\/figure>\n
Text \u00a9 2026. AGU.\u00a0CC BY-NC-ND 3.0<\/a>
Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.<\/h6>\n

Source: Eos<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

body {background-color: #D2D1D5;} Research & Developments is a blog for brief updates that provide context for the flurry of news regarding law and policy changes that […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":11,"featured_media":1956,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[324],"class_list":["post-1955","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-science","tag-eos"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bkbc.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1955","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bkbc.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bkbc.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bkbc.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/11"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bkbc.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1955"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/bkbc.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1955\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bkbc.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1956"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bkbc.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1955"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bkbc.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1955"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bkbc.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1955"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}