CHAMPAIGN, Ill. — The first year of President Trump’s second term has ushered in host of policy changes to higher education, research funding and priorities. Kelvin Droegemeier, professor of climate, meteorology and atmospheric science at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, directed the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy from 2019 to 2021. He now serves as the special advisor to the chancellor for science and policy at the U. of I. He spoke with News Bureau biomedical sciences editor Liz Ahlberg Touchstone about the policy changes and what value science and research have to the nation.
Why does the government have a hand in funding academic research? Can’t private companies, foundations and philanthropists cover it?
It’s important to distinguish among the types of research and the funding for them. The spectrum runs from curiosity-driven, basic, fundamental research to applied work and product development. Private companies invest in research for one reason: to improve their bottom line. And that’s appropriate. Although private companies fund almost as much basic research as the government, they understandably do so in areas specific to their business interests. Private companies will not invest in research just for the sake of understanding. That’s where the government comes in.
Because fundamental research, by design, has no immediately clear commercial benefit, only the government is positioned to fund it; private companies won’t take the risk. Yet fundamental research is the starting point for most things we enjoy today. Thus, the beauty of America’s research ecosystem is that each sector — government, industry, academia, nonprofits and philanthropy — funds research relative to its specific institutional characteristics. Our multisector research and development system is unique in the world and the envy of the world. That’s what’s made us the global leader in research and development.
We talk about global leadership in science and technology — but remember that when you have that leadership, you are at the table, driving the conversation in policies of things like ethical use of artificial intelligence. If we lose our position of technological leadership, will we lose the ability to be at the table, setting those global standards for ethical behavior, use, policies and things like that?
What kind of value does taxpayer-funded research have for the average American? For the country as a whole?
The thing that is most important to me is how our American values comport with our research values. Openness, transparency, accountability, honesty, integrity — research can’t happen without these things. They’re baked into the process by which we do research, and they also are consistent with American values.
Taxpayers provide funding to the government that then is provided to researchers through grants and contracts. An important point that is often overlooked is that the government provides that funding because research is a public good. It’s not just a private good for private companies. It’s a public good that provides benefit back to the taxpayers in the form of national security, economic benefits and quality of life. Then, of course, that research does flow to private industry, and then they innovate to create products and services that benefit society. Science is the seed corn of product and service innovation. Apple didn’t do any of the basic research that resulted in the iPhone, but what they did do is innovate on all of the research outcomes and brought them together to create the iPhone.
Almost every product or service we enjoy today owes its existence in one way or another to taxpayer-funded basic research. GPS, smartphones, flatscreens, computers in our automobiles, therapeutics, vaccines, the internet, LEDs, MRIs, the laser, weather radars, computers and more. All of these have their roots in basic physics, mathematics, computer science, engineering, atmospheric sciences or biology.
What kinds of challenges have arisen in the academic research landscape this year? Things that have made headlines include caps on “indirect costs,” cancelled grants and a reduction in the number of grants awarded.
Attempts to cap indirect costs date back to the mid 1940s, and each presidential administration and Congress has its own priorities. What’s different this time is the degree of proposed cuts and the fact that caps on indirect costs are proposed for many agencies and even private companies.
The geopolitical context today is different than it’s ever been. Some of our other challenges are problematic federal research budgets — obviously, with a $36 trillion national debt, that’s a pretty big deal; taking only a short-term view when setting priorities; aging facilities; prioritizing K-12 education so we’re developing and mining our own domestic talent.
There are a lot of challenges out there, but I like to see opportunity with challenge. By addressing key root problems, we can continue to lead in curiosity-inspired research, bold ideas and disruptive innovation. We want to be prosperous, secure and healthy and to rapidly respond to new challenges.
As a former OSTP director, are there areas of the higher education research system where reforms or a rethinking of structures could be beneficial?
We need to ensure we’re making the most with the funding we already have, and one of the biggest impediments is the compliance requirements for research. On average, researchers funded on federal grants spend between 42 and 44% of their funded time on administrative activities unrelated to the research they are funded to perform. This is a huge waste of taxpayer dollars and a huge waste of intellectual horsepower. Compliance is important, but the issue is that many requirements are duplicative, unnecessary or outdated. Fortunately, efforts are underway now to dramatically reduce unnecessary regulations.
