Scientific research is a cornerstone of innovation, economic growth, and human well-being. The emergence of the modern U.S. scientific ecosystem in the post-World War II era has delivered breakthroughs that have transformed medicine, technology, and everyday life. Yet that system is showing signs of strain.

Most recently, federal actions have increased uncertainty about the future of science in the U.S. These include proposed cuts of 40 to 50 percent to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Science Foundation (NSF), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) budgets; a proposed 15 percent cap on overhead for research grants; grant cancellations aimed at specific universities; and the canceling of peer review meetings for grant applications at the NIH. While these events alone are cause for concern, they are also part of a broader trend of increasing uncertainty in U.S. science.

Even in normal times, researchers face uncertainty due to the contentious federal budgeting process—with the ever-present threats of government shutdowns—as well as the lengthy and unpredictable process of applying for federal research grants. As a result, even successful grant applications that are awarded funding can face uncertainty. Among NIH grants that are competitively renewed, for example, about one in five experiences a funding gap lasting at least a month. These funding interruptions aren’t rare events that occur because of the occasional bureaucratic mishap, but are very much baked into the modern scientific funding system.

These interruptions are more than temporary nuisances, especially among early-career scientists. As our recent research demonstrates, many scientists leave the U.S. in response, and some exit their careers in scientific research altogether. These are people in whom the U.S. has often already invested substantial resources to build their expertise. Their exit diminishes the social return on that investment in the form of lost human capital and innovation potential. The additional disruption and uncertainty generated from the current Administration’s policies are likely to intensify these losses.

Policy Solutions

In light of the significant negative impacts of funding disruptions on scientific personnel, policymakers could explore options to help soften the impact of funding delays. These include:

Bridge Funding. Mechanisms to provide temporary support to labs facing short-term funding gaps. Universities are best placed to do this since they know labs’ funding situation and have ultimate control over contracts, but funding agencies can also play a role by earmarking funds for these purposes.
Streamline Grant Disbursement. Federal funding delays arise in part from administrative procedures and agencies’ caution in committing funds early when budgets remain uncertain and stronger grant proposals may emerge later in the fiscal year. While some delay is inevitable, agencies should weigh the downstream costs of slower disbursement when deciding how to administer research funding.
Multi-Year Appropriations for Science. NIH (and other science funding agencies) get their budgets on a year-to-year basis, but science is an endeavor that happens over long time horizons. R01 grants, for example, are already effectively four- to five-year commitments because research projects span years and depend on stable staffing. Providing forward-funding of individual grants, as well as multi-year appropriations to federal agencies — with some flexibility to respond to short-term needs such as public health emergencies or unexpected scientific breakthroughs — would make funding more predictable and enable the NIH to fund or renew grants in a timelier manner.

Full Report

Related Research