The Future of the American Scientific Landscape
At Bell Labs, Richard Hamming was famous for challenging other researchers with a provocative question: "What are the most important problems in your field?" After listening to their response, he would follow up with, "Why aren't you working on them?" While this question continues to resonate decades later, it carries an implicit privilege – one unique to researchers at Bell Labs, an institution with nearly unlimited resources for research and development.
Today, scientists face a stark reality where the freedom to pursue crucial problems often takes a back seat to financial imperatives. The question isn't just about individual choices, but rather why funding doesn't naturally flow toward the most critical issues in each field. This misalignment between scientific importance and financial support has become even more pronounced in our current political climate, where traditional funding sources for basic research face mounting pressures.
The podcast audio was AI-generated using Google’s NotebookLM
This is a guest post by Evan Peikon, who writes a great Substack at Decoding Biology.
The Research Funding Landscape
In the modern scientific ecosystem, researchers typically choose between two paths: industry or academia. In industry, funding decisions follow a straightforward logic, whether we’re talking about VC-backed startups or large pharma companies. In the pharmaceutical industry, the economics of drug development create a particularly stark calculus. The average cost of bringing a new drug to market exceeds $2.5 billion and such an astronomical investment requires a near-certainty of financial returns. This economic pressure fundamentally shapes research priorities, driving companies to focus on conditions that affect large patient populations with the capacity to pay premium prices for treatment.
Venture capital follows a parallel logic, and while some venture capitalists genuinely aspire to change the world for the better, their primary obligation is to generate financial returns for their limited partners. This imperative directly influences which scientific innovations receive early-stage funding. For example, startups working on solutions with clear, near-term, monetization potential, whether in biotechnology, artificial intelligence, or clean energy, attract substantially more capital than potentially transformative, but less immediately profitable, research.
This market-driven approach to scientific research is efficient at generating profitable innovations, but it systematically fails to address critical scientific challenges that lack immediate commercial potential. The human and scientific cost of this approach is profound – entire domains of potentially groundbreaking research remain unexplored, not because they lack scientific merit, but because they fail to fit neatly into existing economic frameworks.
This is where academia has traditionally come in, offering a place for open-ended scientific inquiry, also known as basic research. Basic research may not generate flashy headlines or immediate returns, but history is replete with examples of breakthrough discoveries emerging from research that would have been dismissed as financially impractical by industry-driven funding standards. For example, CRISPR gene editing technology originated from a seemingly obscure investigation into how yogurt bacteria defend themselves against viral infections. At the time, this work held no apparent commercial promise, but decades later, CRISPR has become a foundational technology in genetic engineering.
Similarly, the discovery of jumping genes emerged from Barbara McClintock's decades-long study of corn genetics. In the 1940s and 1950s, her observations of unusual color patterns in corn kernels led her to propose that genetic elements could move within chromosomes – a concept so radical that the scientific community initially dismissed her work. McClintock was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1983, long after her initial discoveries, for revealing a fundamental mechanism of genetic variation that would become crucial to understanding evolution, genetic disease, and molecular biology.
Another fitting example, that’s impacted us all, is the development of messenger RNA vaccine technology, which seemed like a scientific dead-end for decades. Researchers like Katalin Kariko persevered with mRNA research despite repeated funding rejections and professional setbacks. Her work, combined with contributions from Drew Weissman, laid the groundwork for the COVID-19 vaccines that would save millions of lives – a breakthrough that seemed inconceivable when the initial research began.
These discoveries share a common thread - they were all pursued not for immediate financial gain, but from a pure desire to understand the fundamental workings of our world. Additionally, each represents a leap of scientific imagination that would have been impossible under a strictly market-driven research model. They remind us that the most profound innovations often emerge from the most unexpected places – from seemingly peripheral investigations that challenge our existing understanding.
The Crisis in Basic Research Funding
The United States has long recognized that fundamental scientific research represents a critical national resource – a form of intellectual infrastructure as important to national progress as physical infrastructure. In the post-World War II era, institutions like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) were established with a revolutionary premise that the government has a crucial role in supporting scientific discovery that may not have immediate commercial applications but holds transformative potential.
The NIH has been particularly instrumental in this mission. With an annual budget exceeding $45 billion, it is the world's largest funder of biomedical research, supporting over 300,000 researchers at more than 2,500 universities, medical schools, and other research institutions. Beyond direct funding, the NIH has created an ecosystem that supports scientific collaboration, sets research standards, and drives global medical innovation. For example, the human genome project was the direct result of NIH-funded research.
In addition to the NIH, the NSF plays a complementary role across scientific disciplines. With an annual budget of approximately $8.8 billion, the NSF supports fundamental research and education across all non-medical scientific fields – from computer science and mathematics to social sciences and engineering. Additionally, the NSF has been crucial in supporting early-stage research that might be considered too risky by private funding sources, with notable NSF-supported discoveries including fundamental contributions to the internet, advances in artificial intelligence, and critical research in climate science.
However, recent political developments have placed unprecedented strain on these funding sources, threatening the foundation of American scientific innovation and creating a climate of uncertainty for researchers and institutions dependent on federal grants. At the time of writing this piece, NIH funds have been frozen, and significant reductions to both the NIH and NSF funding have been proposed.
While new private initiatives like the Arc Institute offer promising alternative funding models, they cannot fully replace the broad scope and sustained support provided by federal funding agencies. These private initiatives typically have more focused missions and significantly smaller budgets, whereas the NIH and NSF provide a comprehensive, nationwide approach to supporting scientific research that cannot be replicated by individual institutions or philanthropic efforts.
The long-term implications of these challenges extend far beyond immediate funding concerns. By creating uncertainty and potentially discouraging young researchers, these political interventions threaten to undermine the United States's long-standing leadership in scientific innovation. The ecosystem of scientific research is delicate – it requires consistent support, long-term vision, and an understanding that the most transformative discoveries often emerge from research that may not show immediate, tangible results.
Maximizing Limited Resources
As we navigate this challenging funding landscape, we must explore innovative approaches to accelerating scientific progress with limited resources. One promising direction lies in the principle of "reduce, reuse, recycle" applied to scientific data. By creating uniform formats and rigorous protocols for data collection, storage, and sharing, we can turn scientific research from a fragmented, siloed endeavor into a collaborative, cumulative enterprise. The key to this approach is data standardization – creating uniform formats and protocols that allow research data to be easily shared, understood and repurposed.
When data is properly standardized, experiments conducted for one purpose can potentially answer entirely different questions. For example, a genomic study originally designed to investigate one rare disease could simultaneously provide insights into genetic mechanisms of aging, drug resistance, or hereditary conditions. This efficiency multiplier could help stretch limited research funding further, enabling scientists to extract maximum value from every experiment.
This is more than theoretical optimization. Modern computational techniques – particularly machine learning and advanced statistical analysis – require precisely the kind of clean, consistent data that standardization provides. Where traditional research methods might miss subtle correlations, algorithmic approaches can uncover hidden patterns across vast, interconnected datasets. A blood test collected for one research purpose could potentially yield insights into multiple biological systems, dramatically increasing the return on every research dollar spent.
The efficiency gains are profound. Each standardized dataset becomes a potential resource for future investigations, transforming scientific research from a linear, project-specific endeavor into a dynamic, collaborative ecosystem. By reducing redundancy, enabling cross-disciplinary analysis, and maximizing the utility of existing research, we can stretch limited funding further and accelerate the pace of scientific discovery.
The Challenge Ahead
The current political climate makes it more crucial than ever to develop alternative funding mechanisms and efficiency improvements for basic research. While policy changes will ultimately be necessary to restore robust support for fundamental scientific inquiry, the research community cannot afford to wait. We must act now to:
Develop new funding models that balance scientific importance with commercial viability
Implement rigorous data standardization practices that maximize the value of every experiment
Create incentives for sharing and reusing research data across institutions and disciplines
Build infrastructure for efficient collaboration and data exchange
The path forward requires a fundamental rethinking of how we fund and conduct science. By combining innovative funding approaches with modern data practices, we can help ensure that crucial scientific work continues even in challenging political and economic environments. Hamming's question remains relevant, but perhaps we should now ask: "How can we create systems that enable scientists to work on the most important problems in their field?"
-Evan
Share this post