What’s Wrong with Billionaires Dictating the US Science Agenda?

   

 The Equation Read More 

Billionaires funding science is not new, and it certainly isn’t all bad, but President-elect Trump’s calls to downsize government and privatize science should ring alarm bells across the nation.

As a share of the US economy, private funding for research and development (R&D) is more than three times greater than federal funding for R&D, according to the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. This gap only emerged in the past few decades. Prior to 1980, federal funding outpaced private funding.  With the promises of the new Trump administration, however, the imbalance in favor of private R&D investment likely will increase. This imbalance has important implications for what scientific questions are asked, how easily we can assess the quality.

I’ve dedicated my life to working with other scientists interested in questions that are fundamental to keeping us alive: How do we stop a global pandemic? How do we know if our drinking water is safe? What happens if we build on sand dunes or pave over wetlands?

I’ve learned two important things about how science works over the past decades. First, it takes a lot of different types of scientists—working together with community members who bring important lived experience to the mix—to identify and address the most complex and challenging problems facing society today. And second, doing this crucial work well takes a lot of resources. Both private and public funding are needed. However, these different funding sources play by different rules. Uniquely, the US federal government has an obligation to steward taxpayer dollars toward state-of-the-art research that serves public interests. People around the world have benefited from this investment.

For instance, US federal science played a crucial role in developing the early internet. This technology revolutionized global communication and information sharing. Public sector funding was crucial also for the development of the life-saving vaccines that protect us against COVID-19.  Other federal investments dramatically improved our ability to forecast hurricane tracks so that early warnings help communities evacuate safely.

Federal agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) have long supported a diverse range of research projects, from basic science to applied research, ensuring that scientific advancements benefit society as a whole. While the NIH traces its roots to 1887 (when a one-room laboratory was created within the Marine Hospital Service), the NSF was established as a federal agency in 1950 by President Truman. In the mid 1990s, an NSF grant for web search and data mining research by graduate students Larry Page and Sergey Brin led to the creation of PageRank algorithm, which became the foundation of Google’s search engine.

Federal funding clearly plays a pivotal role in making the US a global economic leader.  

More importantly, though, the US federal funding model is designed to promote transparency, accountability, and rigorous peer review, all essential ingredients for maintaining the credibility and reliability of scientific research.

I don’t think we’d like what we’d likely get if only billionaires, corporations, or other private interests were in charge of the US scientific agenda. Here is what’s at stake:

We need basic science because it lays the foundational knowledge that drives future innovations. Unlike short-term projects driven by corporate or private interests, basic research requires sustained investment and a lot of patience because its benefits might not be apparent for decades. An historical example is the discovery of DNA’s double helix structure, which revolutionized biology and allowed for more precise cancer diagnoses and treatments based on an individual’s genetic makeup.

Another example is the role of stream monitoring, which is needed to track the quality and quantity of water available for households, agriculture, and emergency services. Without monitoring, we wouldn’t be able to assess the effectiveness of restoration projects. We also wouldn’t know where or when to upgrade roads, bridges, schools, or electrical grids.

By supporting basic research, we ensure a continuous pipeline of knowledge and technologies that can address future challenges. In 2022-2024, general science and basic research made up 8-9% of the total federal research and development budget. This support ensures a continuous pipeline of knowledge and technologies that can address future challenges

A second reason we need federally funded research is because empirical evidence plays a key role in developing laws and regulations that keep us healthy and safe.

For instance, research by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has quantified the effects of air pollution associated with respiratory diseases, leading to regulations that improve air quality and public health. The US Department of Agriculture’s research on foodborne pathogens has informed food safety standards and regulations. Research funded by NIH has advanced understanding on the transmission and prevention of infectious disease and led to valuable public health guidelines for disease prevention.

Credible scientific research that serves the public good is essential for a healthy planet and thriving communities. It’s crucial that the country’s research agenda is not co-opted by regulated industries—whether it is social media platforms and artificial intelligence technology, or the chemical and fossil fuel industry.

While private funding from billionaires or corporations can help to advance knowledge, it isn’t always driven by public interest. Research driven primarily by commercial interests is usually focused on immediate financial returns and not on long-term societal benefits.

Federally funded science, on the other hand, can focus on areas that may not be immediately profitable but are essential for the well-being of society. For instance, a pharmaceutical company is likely more interested in science that leads to drugs they can sell to treat diabetes, potentially overlooking cheaper behavioral interventions (e.g., exercise and diet) that help to prevent diabetes in the first place. Other examples are “nudge” initiatives identified by behavioral and social scientists who have helped people save more for retirement or increased the percentage of organ donors. This type of science provides an ethical way to encourage preferred behaviors, but won’t necessarily make money for private entities.

Scholars have documented exhaustively how industry-sponsored academic research is biased in favor of the interests held by fossil fuel, tobacco, pharmaceutical, sugar, and other industries. A well-documented example is how, for many years, tobacco companies downplayed the health risks of smoking and diverted attention away from studying public health interventions that could have saved lives. And of course we’ve seen the same thing will the fossil fuel industry misleading the public for decades about the harms of their products.

Imagine if weather forecasts were only available to those who could pay for them. Farmers might plant crops at the wrong times, travelers could get stranded, and people could find themselves needing help from emergency responders in situations they could have avoided. A lack of accessible weather data would create chaos and potentially put lives at risk. Information like this is vital for everyone and needs to be publicly available.

Privatizing science can restrict access to critical data and findings to only those who can afford to pay for it. Science funded by corporate and private interests is often proprietary, meaning that the research is done under contracts that limit dissemination of methods and findings to only the sponsor. This creates an inequitable landscape where well-funded organizations and individuals can leverage advanced knowledge and technologies, while others, including public institutions and smaller organizations, are left behind.

By maintaining a robust federal research program, we can foster innovation that benefits everyone, not just those with the means to invest in it.

The influence of private wealth and corporate interests on federal scientific research potentially undermines the independence and integrity of the scientific process. In some cases we could find the fox guarding the henhouse.

Imagine a big agricultural company funding research on the safety of its pesticides. If the scientists conducting the study feel pressure (explicitly or even implicitly) to produce favorable results to secure future funding, their independence is compromised. This bias can enter into how a research question is framed, what data are included or excluded, and how the results of a study are interpreted. A researcher (or their employer) may suppress or block publications when results don’t support their funders’ agenda. Consequently, the findings could ultimately prioritize the company’s interests over public health and environmental safety.

The scientific method evolved because scientists recognized their human biases and put in place checks and balances to ensure scientific processes are independent, transparent, and replicable. Without the checks and balances provided by this method—or without an environment that encourages expert (and public) scrutiny—there is a greater risk of funding going to projects that lack scientific rigor or are driven by ulterior motives. It’s like having highly trained NFL referees making the calls at a Steelers-Browns game, rather than leaving it up to fans, who likely come with deep-seated convictions that have nothing to do with football (go Steelers!). When pseudoscience or nonsense marketed as science proliferates, the credibility of legitimate scientific research suffers.

Unfortunately, examples of the harms caused by failures to uphold scientific integrity are plentiful. Under the first Trump administration, the effects of buried research, censored scientists, and halted data collection disproportionately harmed Black, Indigenous, and low-income communities.

To safeguard the quality, integrity, inclusivity, and public value of the US science agenda, it is essential to maintain a balanced approach that prioritizes public interest and addresses a wide range of scientific challenges. This requires robust federal government investment in research and development, as well as policies that promote transparency, accountability, and equitable access to funding opportunities and scientific outputs. It also requires robust laws that protect federal scientists from undue influence or repercussions. There are two important steps for us to take.

First, we must make sure the people appointed to oversee the agencies responsible for funding federal science are appropriately qualified. By “appropriately qualified,” I mean people who have a deep and broad understanding of—and respect for—the scientific method and their scientist and other expert peers.

Second, we must implement the Scientific Integrity Act, a bill that would require clear and enforceable policies that protect scientists and scientific research, done on behalf of the public, from political interference. Somewhat like the official NFL rulebook, this bill would provide a transparent set of rules, a list of foul codes, and a summary of penalties, to be implemented, regardless of which teams are playing.

While the contributions of private philanthropists to scientific research are valuable, it is crucial that the US science agenda prioritizes a balanced and inclusive approach that serves the greater good with transparent and accessible science, rather than hidden science that serves the interests of a privileged few.