See Disclaimer.
I came to the US nearly four decades ago to have the meaningful academic career that I could not (at the time) have in my original country. Now retired, my teaching and research were always driven by a belief in ‘science for society,’ and my projects were funded by a mix of federal (the largest share), state and Tribal agencies, industry, and even local agencies and private foundations. In aggregate, my efforts and those of my many collaborators (faculty, post-docs, students and staff) led to scientific advances with regional, national and international impact. We are certainly not an isolated case.
I still advise scientists across the country on how to come together for collaborative multi-institutional projects at the leading edge of science, technology, and their beneficial adoption by society. In this limited role, I bear frequent witness to brilliant minds driven selflessly by noble goals, with scientific and societal fingerprints of impact that far exceed mine.
The US global leadership in Science and Technology (S&T) did not happen by accident. It happened because scientists were given the culture and conditions to strive—if they so deserve. Many of these scientists are academics, training or working at universities. Being an academic in the US is often a highly stressful and competitive job. The faint of heart need not apply. Even many highly qualified people who try, fail. And those who succeed often flirt uncomfortably with failure: I know I did, only to emerge stronger from the near misses.
The myth that in academia ‘job security is forever’ comes from perceptions around the tenure system, a system that does not apply to all academics, and certainly not to those in the early stages of their career. Some universities do not have such a system, and others are trimming down on tenure. I never had tenure, never wanted it, and both as faculty and administrator sought alternatives (rolling contracts, for example) that in my opinion better protect science, universities, and scientists. Even if I don’t like the tenure system, though, I deeply respect how most tenured scientists had to meet highly demanding requirements to get there.
Rather than secure jobs, what US scientists have had is the opportunity to compete for research funds and other resources—mostly fairly and in ways that encourage (demand!) excellence, initiative, and innovation. With success rates varying by agency and program, but typically in the low teens or even single digits, science proposals are reviewed competitively. The grueling review process often combines peer and merit components. Peer review judges the proposal excellence as assessed by experts (often competitors, although not in the same program). Merit review judges the proposal alignment with agency needs and priorities (through the lens of career program officers, without political micromanagement).
The system is not perfect, but it has worked impressively well. From basic physics to COVID vaccines and cancer cures, from deep sea to outer space exploration, from high-resolution TVs to safer and smarter cars, from computer chips to the wireless devices that we all carry in our pockets—much of that and SO much more is possible only or in part because of a (for the moment still unparallel) US S&T. As a telling measure of US dominance in science, the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded since inception (in 1901) to far more US scientists (97; 38% of whom immigrants) than to scientists anywhere else in the world; Germany and the United Kingdom come second and third, with 28 and 26 respectively.
I could write at length about what I see as sub-optimal and thus would love to see changed in the US academic and S&T systems. But the demonstrated benefits of our current systems undeniably far (far!) surpass the dollar investment. More than ever before, academic S&T matters—as AI, robotics, genomics, telecommunications, climate science (yes, climate science!), complex materials and so much more increasingly determine how we live, prosper, and die.
If the US wants to keep leading—or even remaining a significant player—globally, we must maintain and strengthen stable investment in academic S&T. That means supporting both ‘curiosity’ science (from which many breakthrough technology advances have historically ultimately resulted) and ‘applied’ science and technology. It means research dollars that are not withdrawn at a whim once competed. It means people feeling safe and motivated. It means education programs and stable institutions for this and the next generations to strive and continue to innovate.
The Administration and DOGE are profoundly and inexcusably wrong in their attacks—whether uninformed or politically motivated—on academia. In their better and worse aspects, neither DEI programs nor student protests define academia. Columbia, Harvard, and universities at large are not the enemy—they are a truly precious and irreplaceable resource. For every young (or old) American who quits or does not pursue a higher education or academic dream because of Administration/DOGE attacks, and for each scientist who emigrates or does not come to the US because they don’t find conditions to do their work here—we become poorer as a nation. And that is an unacceptable self-inflicted wound that may never fully heal.
As Americans, we—much like academia—are not perfect. But much like academia and in part because of it, we have been overachievers. This is no time to quit on academia (or on ourselves, for that matter). Let’s instead inspire a broad-base national movement to make US academia and S&T even stronger and more impactful. To the detriment of none. For the benefit of all.
— Antonio Baptista
Correction: At the end of the first paragraph, the correct sentence is “We are certainly not an isolated case.” The ‘not’ was missing in the original text, which unintentionally and significantly distorted the intended message: ‘science for society’ is not an exception, but rather a philosophy embraced by many academics.
Outside the box 