American Science@250: Rethink, Reimagine, and Redesign
Program Areas –
American Science @250: Forum Background Reading
The Future of America’s Scientific Enterprise
A short guide before your forum on October 3, 2026
Two hundred fifty years ago, the founders of the United States gathered to define American democracy and pursue “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” The horse-drawn carriages and candle-lit rooms of 1776 seem far removed from today’s driverless cars and smartphones. Yet many of the founders thought of themselves as scientists and tinkerers, and the Constitution itself set out a patent system to encourage scientific and technological progress.
Today we face a new moment: New technologies reshape our jobs and daily lives. Many Americans disagree about major issues related to science and technology. And unlike 250 years ago, today’s federal government invests billions of dollars a year in research about all sorts of topics. Scientists, elected officials, and other stakeholders are actively deciding (and arguing) about the future of this spending. This forum is about bringing your perspective into that decision. This document gives you some background about how federally funded research works, and the challenges and disagreements related to federally funded research. There won’t be a quiz about it at the forum, but the information here will help you feel prepared for discussing these important issues with others at the forum. We encourage you to print it out, take notes, or write down any questions you might have as you read through it.
What Is the Scientific Enterprise?
At the forum, you’ll hear the phrase “Scientific Enterprise” a lot. It refers to the whole system of people and organizations that carry out scientific research, engineering, and technology development. This enterprise is spread out across the country. Researchers at universities study how cancer cells develop. Engineers at technology companies build new AI models and tools. Scientists in the federal government study and forecast the weather. The system is large and complex, with different groups working on different problems at different kinds of institutions.
The forum will be focused on an important part of this enterprise: Research paid for with taxpayer money (also called ‘publicly-funded research’Research funded through federal agencies — like NSF, NIH, DOE, or NASA — rather than research a company pays for entirely on its own.). In recent years, the federal government has spent between $150–200 billion dollars a year on research, which is approximately 2–3% of total federal spending. This funding goes to many types of research, including health research, space exploration, the development of new technologies for national defense, advanced computing, and research about physics, chemistry, biology, and social sciences. See the chart below for a breakdown of research spending in 2023.
Department of Defense — 46% ($85.9B)
Dept. of Health & Human Services — 28% ($52.5B)
Department of Energy — 9% ($16.1B)
NASA — 6% ($11.7B)
National Science Foundation — 4% ($7.5B)
All other departments & agencies — 7% ($12.6B)
Federal spending on research varies year to year, but this chart gives you a rough idea of what agencies spend the most on research. Source: National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, Survey of Federal Funds for Research and Development, FYs 2023–24. More charts on research spending are available through the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
At the forum, we’ll discuss the types of research the federal government pays for and challenges facing the scientific enterprise. To understand these challenges, it helps to look at how the enterprise took shape historically.
World War II and the Birth of a System
An important turning point in the story of American science is World War II. During the war, the federal government paid for research across the country to pursue new science and build new technologies to help the war effort. Researchers at universities, government labs, and companies across the nation discovered new scientific knowledge and built new technologies, including radar, the atomic bomb, and early computers, and many other innovations.
As the war neared its end, President Franklin Roosevelt turned to Vannevar BushAn engineer who led much of the U.S. government’s wartime research investments. His 1945 report to FDR, “Science, the Endless Frontier,” largely shaped the postwar U.S. research system., who had led much of the country’s wartime research investments, and asked: How can the country build on the scientific and technological progress built up during the war?
Vannevar Bush answered with a vision for government support of US science. This support, in his words, was for the war against disease, for our national security, and for public welfare. He called for the creation of a separate agency in the government to fund scientific research. Congress established the National Science Foundation in 1950 in response. The basics of this arrangement looked like this:
Federal government
funds scientific research at universities and in government labs
Universities
train scientific talent and conduct scientific research
Industry
draws on this research and talent to create new technologies
While this arrangement is still important today, its simplicity hides some important details that we’ll get to later.
Bush’s vision rested on two arguments: scientific progress requires that scientists, who have an “understanding of the peculiarities of scientific research,” be the ones who make decisions about what science the federal government supports — Bush wanted scientists leading this new science agency because scientists understood scientific research and were therefore most qualified to make decisions about what science would advance knowledge. And scientists should work on “subjects of their own choice, in the manner dictated by their curiosity for exploration of the unknown” — in other words, scientists should have the freedom to define the directions of their research.
Bush wanted decisions about what research efforts were worthy of public investment to be insulated from political pressure. He entrusted scientists themselves to play a major role in leading the agency.
Gut reaction: does it make more sense to you for scientists to decide what research gets funded, or for elected officials to have more say?
A System Taking Shape
Bush’s vision wasn’t the only one on the table after WWII. West Virginia Senator Harvey Kilgore’s ideas for federal support of research looked different from Bush’s proposal. Some of their disagreements have continued to play out since the 1950s. The scientific enterprise that eventually developed is not simply Bush’s vision or Kilgore’s — it contains elements of both.
The general contours of four of their disagreements are laid out below. We invite you to weigh in on these debates as you discuss them with others at the forum. Drag each slider to where your instinct lands — there’s no wrong answer.
1. Should public investments in research go to the best scientists at the best institutions, or should it be more evenly distributed across the country?
Bush thought scientists should play a central role in deciding how funding should be allocated to proposed research projects. These decisions should be based largely on scientific merit, which requires scientists with relevant expertise to evaluate which research projects were most promising. His approach ultimately favored already-successful researchers at successful universities and companies.
Senator Kilgore worried about a different problem: Where federal research money would end up. He was concerned that Bush’s approach would replicate what happened during World War II — a great deal of federal funding for scientific research went to just a handful of universities and companies. Kilgore thought that a system based primarily on competition for scientific merit could continue concentrating federal research funding in institutions and parts of the country that already had substantial research capacity. He proposed that 25% of research budgets be distributed among the states based on equal shares and population, while the remaining 75% would be allocated based on scientific merit and expert peer review.
Over time, federal research funding did become highly concentrated. Universities and regions entered the postwar era with very different levels of research infrastructure, funding, scientific talent, and institutional resources. Success often builds on itself, and so institutions that won research funding could use it to build laboratories, recruit researchers, train scientists, and compete for still more funding. Various reports and studies from the last ten years have found that a large majority of federal research funds go to a small proportion of research universities.[1]
2. Should publicly-funded research focus on the priorities of the scientific community, or towards addressing societal needs?
After WWII, many scientists and policy leaders felt it was important that the scientific community itself manage public funding for research, because scientists have the expertise to judge viability and potential of different directions for research. Some scientists, including Bush, were skeptical of integrating science into efforts to address broader societal needs. They worried that connecting research too closely to other policy debates would open science up to political influence and get in the way of the best science. (While this debate raged, a majority of science funding in the years right after WWII was tied to one particular societal need: national defense.)
But others did not agree. Senator Kilgore proposed that a portion of public investments in research should be dedicated to solving social and economic problems. He and other scientists and policy makers advocated for linking research to coordinated government programs to address specific challenges.
This debate did not end in the 1940s or 50s. Today, for example, the National Science Foundation makes its research-grant funding decisions based on both scientific merit and broader societal impact.
3. Should the outputs of publicly-funded science be privately or publicly owned?
Another key debate from Bush’s time was patents from research. Patents allow inventors to prevent other people from selling or using their invention, which in turn allows them to reap the benefits of having invented their new product. Senator Kilgore argued that if the federal government funded research that resulted in a patent, the government should own that patent and be able to license it to serve the public good. Opponents at the time argued that the government owning patents from government-funded research would limit companies from turning their research into new products or drugs.
By 1980, Congress had standardized patent policy, allowing companies, universities, and non-profits to own the patents stemming from federally-funded research they performed. This allowed those organizations to receive commercial revenues from those patents.
4. Topics and Directions
Bush’s vision for the scientific enterprise focused on advancing fundamental scientific knowledge and developing scientific talent, particularly in fields such as medicine, physics, chemistry, biology, and engineering. He argued that new knowledge produced through basic research would eventually lead to important benefits for health, national security, the economy, and public welfare. Senator Kilgore, on the other hand, favored a broader federal system, including funding for applied research aimed at specific social and economic problems and wanted the social sciences included more fully alongside the natural sciences and engineering. Today, the federal government invests in research across many disciplines, though some receive much more funding than others.
A lot has changed since these debates in the 1940s and 50s. The idea of “artificial intelligence” was one of science fiction. We didn’t yet know about the environmental harm that would come from breakthroughs in chemistry (like pesticides). And the first trip of mankind into space wouldn’t take place for another decade.
Today, Congress, presidential administrations, federal agencies, scientists, advocates, and other groups regularly debate which areas of research deserve greater attention and public investment. Here are some of the major research areas you’ll discuss at the forum:
Who Performs Research?
The scientific enterprise is a big, complex system with many parts. One critical piece of this system is the groups that actually perform research using federal funds. Different institutions are good at different kinds of research and they also face unique challenges. Let’s take a look at each one and the challenges each faces today.
🎓 Universities
Bush described universities as having “the responsibility of conserving the knowledge accumulated by the past, imparting that knowledge to students, and contributing new knowledge of all kinds.” Universities are unique, he argued — and many advocates for university-led research still argue today — because researchers there work “free from the adverse pressure of convention, prejudice, or commercial necessity”: free, in other words, to create knowledge that might challenge existing ways of doing things, while also training the next generation of scientists.
Over the last several decades, American universities have generally been seen as exemplary around the world. University researchers have contributed to breakthrough drugs and new technologies, spurred local economic growth, and created new start up companies. American universities produce talent that supports industry and local government. Many students from other countries come to the U.S. specifically to train as scientists, though recent changes to student visa policies might reduce the pull of U.S. universities for international students.
Most federal funding for research that goes to universities arrives as merit-based research grants which have become increasingly competitive. In 1995, almost 30% of applications to the NIH were funded; in 2025, it was about 15%. Universities also receive federal support for educating students through programs like Pell Grants.
Universities also face challenges today. University researchers publish more scientific papers than ever, yet some of that research doesn’t immediately translate into outcomes for society. Some policy makers have criticized universities as too elite or too politically biased, arguing this undermines the research they produce.
Universities also receive funding from the federal government for the cost of things like advanced laboratories and administrative support. Universities receive these “overhead costs” in addition to the research funding they receive. One study found that for every $1 universities received in research funding from the National Institutes of Health, universities received another $0.43 in overhead costs.[2] Some policy makers argue overhead costs are too high and that they divert money that could otherwise fund more research. Universities have stated that overhead costs help make sure they can perform advanced research, manage reporting requirements for federal funds, and pay research support staff. (Industry-performed research includes similar administrative costs, though they’re harder to compare directly because data about those costs isn’t always public.)
🏭 Industry
Vannevar Bush viewed industry as the main performer of research with practical outcomes. Today, industry funds a lot of research on its own, but it also receives funding from the federal government to conduct research. The military, for example, pays companies to develop new technologies for defense and war. The Department of Energy funds companies building advanced energy technologies. Even the National Science Foundation awards money to companies. Much of this federal funding arrives as contracts rather than grants.
Some policy makers point to the advantages of industry’s ability to turn research into products and services people can actually use as a key reason to fund it with public money. To these policy makers, private industry can simply move faster and be more nimble than universities or government labs, and the new products they make through research support economic growth. Using public research funds for industry-led research can also stimulate technological growth important to other policy goals. Federal research support for technologies like solar panels, for example, allowed the technology to advance and become competitive with existing energy sources.
Industry faces its own challenges. Profit motive can be a reason for public distrust of industry-led research, such as questions about safety and efficacy of medical technologies. Critics argue industry prioritizes research it expects to be profitable, which may limit its role in science where no market yet exists but which might be important for broader society. Others note that industry isn’t accountable to public interests except where the government requires it. And because federal funding to industry usually arrives as contracts rather than grants, the administrative costs — unlike university overhead — aren’t negotiated publicly, meaning there is less transparency about how those federal dollars are used.
🌐 Nonprofit Research Organizations
Nonprofit research organizations often pursue scientific discovery for the public good, without the pressure to turn a profit or train students, though many choose to train students. They typically focus on a specific area of research or a specific challenge — the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, for example, studies marine science and engineering, and the Southwest Research Institute conducts research spanning space science, engineering, and automation. Nonprofits take a variety of forms and can also serve as connectors among university, government, and industry scientists. These organizations perform a relatively small share of federally-funded research and are guided by their specific missions, which might not include some areas of research.
🏛️ Federal Government Labs
Federal government labs conduct research aimed at large-scale national priorities, mandated services, public goods, and long-term scientific challenges too risky, expensive, or unprofitable for private companies or universities to take on alone. Many federal science projects take 10 to 20 years to complete and involve large-scale planning and new national infrastructure.
These labs take different forms and have varied relationships with industry. Some, like the National Institutes of Health, operate somewhat like universities, with scientists largely mapping out their own research directions. Others, like NASA, perform research to fulfill government missions. The National Institute of Standards and Technology conducts and coordinates research for industrial competitiveness and works closely with industry. Still others — the national labs — are managed day-to-day by outside companies, nonprofits, or universities, but remain fully accountable to the federal government.
Who performs federally funded research? (2024)
Non-Defense Research
Approximately $91 billion in 2024
Universities — 43%
Federal government labs — 33.1%
Industry — 13.6%
Nonprofit research organizations — 8.9%
Other — 1.4%
Defense Research
Approximately $103 billion in 2024
Industry — 55.9%
Federal government labs — 36.1%
Universities — 5%
Nonprofit research organizations — 2.4%
Other — 0.6%
“Other” includes state and local governments, as well as international research organizations. Source: National Science Foundation, Federal obligations for research and experimental development, by agency and performer: FY 2024, Table 7. Nonprofit and “Other” shares for defense research are approximate.
The People Behind the Research
It’s worth remembering that all of this research — at universities, industry, nonprofits, or government labs — is ultimately done by people. Eighty years ago, Vannevar Bush already emphasized how much scientific progress depends on talented, well-trained people. That challenge hasn’t gone away.
Universities train most scientists. This training emphasizes skills for careers inside the academic system — even though a majority of new PhDs go on to work in industry or government instead. While some scientists end up with permanent roles as researchers at universities, many scientists who stay in universities work in temporary, non-permanent roles.
The U.S. scientific workforce also relies heavily on foreign-born talent. In 2024, about one-third of everyone who completed a PhD in the U.S. was not a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. Most non-citizen scientists stay and become part of the U.S. workforce. Historically, many great scientists fleeing persecution or war abroad have done the same. This reliance is also a source of real disagreement. Some policy makers have raised national-security concerns about non-citizens working in cutting-edge, sensitive fields. Others worry that immigration policies making it harder to study or work in the U.S. will push talented scientists — and the tuition dollars they bring to universities — elsewhere.
Universities publish more research than ever, and industry spends more on R&D than ever too — yet the two often work separately. Some of the biggest scientific breakthroughs of the 20th century, like the transistor, came from industry-based research that brought scientists focused on basic understanding together with engineers focused on building new products. Bridging that divide is one of several ideas on the table for how to improve the system — along with the reforms below.
Ideas on the Table — Possible Reforms
At the forum, you’ll review policy ideas like these and discuss how important each feels to you and others at your table. Here’s a preview of those ideas for reform:
Who Should Select What Research Efforts Are Conducted With Public Funding?
Earlier, we looked at the challenges facing the organizations that perform research, and some of the reforms on the table to address them. Now we turn to a different question: how should federal agencies decide which specific research efforts to fund?
Every year, federal agencies receive far more research proposals than they can afford to fund. Someone has to decide which ones move forward, and who that “someone” should be is itself a point of disagreement.
Historically, many federal agencies have relied on scientific merit review: agencies ask scientists with relevant expertise to volunteer their time evaluating proposals from other scientists and recommending which ideas are most scientifically sound and likely to advance the field. Agency staff, who are sometimes researchers themselves, then use those reviews along with agency priorities to make funding recommendations to directors about which proposal should get funded. The exact process differs among agencies.
But merit review isn’t the only model, and scientists aren’t the only ones who could be involved. Some federal agencies invite experts from industry, non-profits, or local, state, and Tribal governments to weigh in on what should be funded. Others give government scientists more authority to make decisions, and recent policy proposals have pushed for political appointees at federal agencies to play a larger role. Some research efforts funded by the federal government result from decisions made by Congress to create specific research programs. In all federal agencies, decisions made about what research efforts receive funding are bound by the funding given to each agency by Congress and laws passed by Congress about how research money can be spent. Nonprofit advocacy organizations can also contribute to decisions about what research efforts receive federal funding. Patient advocacy groups, for example, can bring in people with direct experience of a health condition to help review proposed treatments and preventions. Some scholars and experts have even pointed to a potential role for artificial intelligence tools in helping select what gets funded.