Cutting Federal Funding for Basic Research Hurts the Economy

Amid ongoing budget brinkmanship, U.S. House and Senate panels have proposed significant funding cuts for basic scientific research. That would be a grave mistake for our nation's long-term economic success, writes Provost and Executive Vice President Jerry Balentine, D.O., in an op-ed in The Hill.  

President Joe Biden’s 2024 budget proposal maintained funding levels for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and proposed a small boost for the National Science Foundation (NSF). Yet, existing congressional proposals significantly reduce funding.

“Far from reducing the debt burden, cuts to federal funding contribute to it by diminishing the fund of new knowledge that drives economic growth,” Balentine writes.

The for-profit sector can take basic research and turn it into useful products—from semiconductors to AI to biotech. But often, their origin point isn’t a business. It’s research institutions or universities operating with federal funding.

The bulk of NIH and NSF annual budgets go to grants for basic research. Yet, basic research comprises a tiny fraction of the federal budget, and economists have shown that this spending pays off several times over in sustained economic growth.

Proposed cuts would have far-reaching consequences for more than 300,000 researchers across the country. And if funding dries up, potential breakthroughs slip out of reach.

Science typically advances incrementally, with discoveries building upon decades of previous work. Consider the history of the anti-HIV drug AZT. A medical researcher first developed it decades ago as part of the government’s “War on Cancer.” While results were disappointing then, 20 years later, scientists at the National Cancer Institute found that AZT delayed the onset of AIDS, paving the way for subsequent generations of life-saving treatment.

From cell phones to the Internet, 3-D printing to CRISPR gene-editing, countless major innovations can be traced to basic research supported by the federal government. Nobody knew where those research projects would lead when they were approved for federal funding. But we can already anticipate future solutions to Alzheimer’s disease, and even more significant is what we can’t yet imagine.

Not all experiments underway at U.S. institutions will pan out. But some will lead to breakthroughs in global health crises like antibiotic resistance; others will solve problems we haven’t yet foreseen. We can’t afford to lose these potential advances.

The cuts Congress proposed in non-defense research and development sharply contrast approaches of economic competitors like Germany, Japan, and South Korea, which already spend a higher percentage of gross domestic product on scientific research than the United States. In China, meanwhile, research and development spending from 2010 to 2019 grew at nearly twice the U.S. rate.

Cutting research funding now could later mean relying on other, possibly hostile nations for vital medical cures and technology. “Funding for basic research is not a luxury item in the federal budget. It’s the cornerstone of our future prosperity,” Balentine concludes.

Read the entire op-ed.

This op-ed is part of a campaign designed to help generate awareness and build reputation for the university on topics of national relevance. Read more op-eds by New York Tech thought leaders.