Does the US still have the capacity for scientific moonshots?

Get updates on Life & Arts for free

Subscribe to our myFT Daily Digest email to stay updated with the latest news in Life & Arts every morning.

Is the United States still capable of achieving scientific moonshots? This is an intriguing question to contemplate amidst the buzz surrounding the movie Oppenheimer, which chronicles the development of America’s first nuclear bomb. The ongoing debate has understandably revolved around the risks of nuclear warfare and how brilliant innovations can become dangerous. However, as I watched the film, a different notion struck me: the remarkable speed and magnitude at which the US government allocated resources to this project.

Today, Washington faces new challenges. While it continues to produce remarkable innovations, such as advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) and the “warp speed” program for finding a Covid-19 vaccine, these achievements often seem to occur despite, rather than because of, the federal government.

In the era of Oppenheimer, the government was willing to allocate nearly unlimited funds to projects deemed important. President Roosevelt quickly approved an initial $500 million investment, which later increased to $2 billion. However, contemporary federal funding for research and development must be approved annually through a Congressional vote. For instance, last month, the White House submitted its proposed 2024 budget to Congress. Although the National Science Foundation’s budget is likely to pass, Republicans are expected to significantly reduce the requested budget for its medical counterpart, the National Institute of Health.

This constant budget uncertainty leaves research institutions in a state of ambiguity. A prominent figure in American astronomy recently told me, “We envy Europe.” This sentiment arises from the stark contrast between the European Space Agency, which receives a secured six-year funding commitment from its parliament, and its American counterpart, NASA.

Furthermore, the government’s role in scientific research has been diminishing. According to a recent report from the Aspen Economic Strategy Group (AESG), the United States still dominates global research and development budgets on a gross basis. However, while US business investment in R&D has more than tripled since 1990, federal public spending on R&D has remained relatively stagnant. As a result, public R&D investment now comprises only one-third of private investment, whereas they used to be roughly equal.

While approximately half of all basic science research is financed with public funds, businesses predominantly fund half of all applied research and almost all experimental development. The American Association for the Advancement of Science noted earlier this year that “the US’s public R&D investments continue to stagnate, while others invest heavily,” citing America’s fall to 13th place in public R&D intensity worldwide. Furthermore, at least half of the public R&D funds are allocated to the Department of Defense, with only 6% going to NASA. Hence, American astronomers are envious of Europe’s investment in science.

Does this situation matter? Some American politicians, particularly those advocating for a free-market and small-government approach, argue that it does not. They point to the global dominance of US companies in various industries, attributing their success to R&D prowess driven by entrepreneurs. Examples include AI breakthroughs from start-ups like OpenAI and tech giants such as Google.

However, American scientists in less commercially viable areas are increasingly concerned. They argue that basic research often requires long-term investment before yielding tangible results. While venture capitalists like Elon Musk may back ambitious projects, they are the exception rather than the norm.

There is a strong economic case to be made for such investments, as publicly funded scientific research generates substantial returns, according to the AESG. Benjamin Jones, a contributor to AESG, suggests that “effectively, the science and innovation system is akin to having a machine where society can put in $1 and get back $5 or more.” Additionally, economist and venture fund luminary Bill Janeway points out that while “the US state emerged as the dominant source of R&D funding” in the postwar period, paving the way for digital and biotech revolutions, “by the 1980s, a professional VC industry had emerged to dance on the platforms created by the US state.” Consequently, Silicon Valley thrived due to the mid-20th-century public R&D boom.

Could history repeat itself? Could the threat posed by China spur Congress to substantially increase its funding allocation, as Germany did in the 1940s and the USSR did in the 1960s? While no one desires a return to war or another pandemic, the question facing the scientific community is how to secure the necessary investment without a full-blown crisis.

Follow Gillian on Twitter @gilliantett and email her at [email protected]

Follow @FTMag on Twitter to find out about our latest stories first