Re-thinking academic research funding

See Disclaimer.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are outstanding examples of our country’s visionary and successful strategy to invest in unparalleled strength in science & technology—and to place it at the service of society. That strategy has fueled unrivaled national prosperity and global leadership.  

But the strategy—and the NSF and NIH of the past 75 and 95 years, respectively—are in jeopardy. Both agencies cancelled grants already awarded, in politically driven decisions unrelated to performance or funding ability—a blatant violation of trust relative to the affected investigators and universities. And both agencies’ proposed budget reductions for FY26 are brutal self-inflicted wounds contrary to the national interest, unconvincingly disguised as steps towards ‘efficiency’ and ‘true science.’

NIH has requested $27.5 billion in discretionary budget authority (a $18 billion reduction) while NSF has requested $4 billion (a $5 billion reduction). In a dire but realistic assessment, the American Society for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)—the largest and arguably most prestigious science society in the world—states that “If enacted, the FY26 budget request would end America’s global scientific leadership. The cuts to science would imperil our nation’s future health, security and prosperity.”

AAAS is also reminding Congress that it has long shown a “bipartisan commitment to investment in research” and “must do so again to answer the President’s” own “call for a renewed commitment to American scientific leadership.” Unfortunately, the president’s ‘call’ is belied by his actions—which constitute an unprecedented attack on the very universities, investigators and funding agencies that directly (through research) and indirectly (through advanced education) catalyze America’s scientific prowess.

It is not only through funding that the attack is occurring. NSF and NIH are being restructured without credible thought or process. Universities are being denigrated and punished over DEI, their ability to self-manage and to recruit foreign students is being curtailed, their accreditation is being threatened without due process, and consideration is being given to bar NIH-funded investigators from publishing in top peer-reviewed journals. All these actions, and more, run against a time honored ‘bargain:’ the federal government sets high-level direction for the budget it makes available to federal funding agencies, without micromanaging—and in exchange the country receives unabashed commitment, excellence and innovation from universities and their investigators, and from funding agencies and their staff.

As a (now retired) academic, I have seen NSF up close, both as a reviewer and an awardee—including once directing a multi-institutional NSF Science and Technology Center. I know ‘deep in my bones’ how fierce the competition is for NSF grants—from individual awards to center-scale premier programs—and how stringent the review process is. I don’t always agree with NSF priorities or funding decisions; in fact, I once sought (and ultimately earned) reconsideration on the agency’s decision regarding one of my collaborative projects. But NSF deserves enormous respect for its independence, seriousness of purpose, commitment to the national interest, and merit-based processes—and the country will be unambiguously far poorer with a diminished NSF.

Much because of NSF, NIH, and other federal funding agencies, the US academic freedom and conditions to pursue innovation have been unparalleled—and have delivered awesomely on investment. Notably, the uniqueness of our system has attracted bright talent from around the world to do science and advance technology here, rather than in their native countries—to our great benefit. Einstein and 147 other foreign-born scientists earned Nobel Prizes, an illustration of how our distinctive scientific melting pot has been a foundational advantage for the US. Shockingly and unwisely, we are giving that advantage away in an unforced miscalculation. Already, our ‘brain recruitment’ is being replaced by an (American and foreign-born) brain drain away from the US—to the benefit of China, Europe and others.

While the ongoing attack on universities is broad in roots and scope, a drastic reduction in federal research funding is distinctively damaging—because federal funding plays a disproportionate role in total academic research funding. An alternative funding paradigm is thus essential to protect (should we already say ‘rebuild?’) our academic research and education.

Boldly, this alternative could be a non-profit Academic Foundation that would:

1. Coordinate funding for academic research and education nationally.
2. Rely on a private-federal-state hybrid funding model, with a budget authority upwards of 100 billion annually.
3. Listen to, but retain autonomy from, all funders.
4. Award funding stably and based on rigorous peer and merit review criteria.
5. Have supporting arms for effective public communication and legal protection.

There would be enormous challenges: from consensus on philosophy to the logistics of capital, membership, governance, and earning public and private buy-in. Implementation might need to be phased in, to allow expansion of participating funding sectors (and participants within sectors) around cores of increasing critical mass. But, ultimately, such Foundation—and the national dialogue it would require—could:

1. Minimize arbitrary threats and attempts at control or micromanagement—whatever their source.
2. Offer the funding stability that the vagaries of our political system have precluded in recent years.
3. Coalesce under the same umbrella and with a common purpose, disparate sources of funding with historically uncoordinated agendas, both at the private-public interface and within each of these sectors.
4. Retain, evolve, and amplify the essence of our national (fundamental and applied) innovation, including academic freedom, accountable excellence, and a healthy mix of fundamental and applied science.

As a word of caution, no alternative funding paradigm will succeed without academia re-gaining the trust of the American public. That trust has declined drastically in the last decade, due in large part to politically motivated disinformation. But academia itself must do better in at least two regards: public communication and self-assessment. Having a great product is not enough, if the product is not well understood or valued; and unacknowledged weaknesses allow disinformation and distrust to grow. Will universities recognize that the time for reflection and correction is now?

As a further word of caution, independent stable funding requires a very large budget authority rooted in and protected by innovative thinking by individuals and legislatures. This could be, just as an example, a non-exclusive combination of a massive endowment and legislated percentages of federal and state budgets, tax revenues, or other reference points. Will American wealth and thought leaders, Congress, state legislatures, and corporations raise to the occasion—for country, rather than themselves? Who will dare to create the funding kernel around which the full budget authority will grow over time?

On the upside, should academia, potential funders and the public come together, the suggested Academic Foundation might be exactly what the country needs to transform threat into the opportunity for a visionary new age of US science & technology—‘next-gear’ innovative, broadly supported, and at the service of all.

— Antonio Baptista