For much of the last century, the United States has led the world in scientific research and innovation. American scientists have produced more research, received more citations, earned more patents, and won more Nobel Prizes than their counterparts in any other country. This scientific leadership has contributed to national prosperity and improved quality of life both domestically and internationally.
However, experts note that this dominance was not always assured. Cathryn Carson, chair of the History Department at UC Berkeley, explained that until World War II, federal investment in science was limited to practical applications such as coastal surveys or agricultural research. “Through the early part of the 20th century, what we think of as basic science — areas like physics, astronomy… — the U.S. wasn’t really strong in those areas,” said W. Patrick McCray, a history professor at UC Santa Barbara.
Carson added that before the 1930s it was considered inappropriate for the federal government to fund university or industry science. This changed dramatically during World War II when concerns over national security prompted significant federal investment in scientific research across disciplines such as aeronautics and nuclear physics.
“The progress these academic scientists were able to make with a little bit of federal funding got the heads turned around of some leading university-based scientists, who raised the alarm and persuaded President Roosevelt to build up an entire infrastructure of guiding and funding University-based science, purely for the purpose of winning World War II,” Carson said.
Following WWII, President Roosevelt’s science advisor Vannevar Bush produced a report called “Science: The Endless Frontier,” which outlined a long-term policy for federal support of basic research. According to McCray: “It laid out a blueprint for what would become U.S. science policy in the years and decades following the Second World War.”
Federal leaders realized they were investing not just in products but also in people. As McCray described it: “They recognized we needed to have a cadre of trained scientists and engineers… Scientists were seen as a resource to be stockpiled…”
By the 1960s, government spending on research and development reached about two percent of GDP. These investments were justified by anticipated benefits to health, economic growth, and national security—what McCray called “the social contract that emerged between scientists and the federal government after WWII.”
The impact of these investments can be seen in developments like polymerase chain reaction (PCR), which stemmed from basic microbial ecology studies funded decades earlier. PCR later became essential for advances such as COVID-19 vaccine development.
Carson noted that sectors like Silicon Valley owe much to defense-funded microelectronics projects initially developed for military purposes before being adapted for consumer markets.
Other nations soon followed suit with their own investments after WWII; countries including Germany and Japan made advances in manufacturing while Japan became competitive in microelectronics by the 1970s.
Maintaining leadership requires ongoing investment across all stages from discovery through commercialization—a point Carson emphasized: “Having a system of innovation that can play at all stages… helps keep domestic companies in the lead over global competitors.”
Traditionally, peer review within scientific communities determined funding priorities; however Carson observed growing distrust toward this model: “It’s only been the past few years that we’ve seen a rising lack of trust in scientists being self-interested rather than finding truth through coordinating with each other.”
Recent pauses or cancellations affecting billions in federal research grants—and proposed budget cuts threatening agencies by up to half—raise concerns about future impacts on American families and communities.
McCray warned: “One way these cuts could hurt… is if it makes it so this is no longer a place where people from other countries can come to take advantage of our scientific resources.” He also highlighted risks associated with diminishing respect for expertise: “Science is… designed to produce consensus — not certainty — about knowledge.”
He concluded by noting U.S. leadership is neither permanent nor guaranteed: “It has a history… like any other system, it can be degraded. And sadly, that’s what’s happening now.”
