On Tuesday, June 3, the president of the National Academy of Sciences, Marcia McNutt, delivered her second annual speech on the state of science to an auditorium crowded at Nas Building in Washington, DC, and more than 2,000 virtual viewers.
McNutt discussed the many problems with which the American scientific company faces – federal budget cuts with a heavy regulatory environment with a loss of international talents – and has proposed a range of actions to strengthen it.
McNutt noted that there was a goal shared by all Americans. “Everyone, whether scientists or non-sciences, wants American science to be the world leader.”
The debate concerns the way we get there, she said. “The elephant in the room right now is whether the drastic reductions in research budgets and new research policies in federal agencies will allow us to remain a research and development power,” said McNutt. “Thus, we are embarking on a new radical experience under what conditions favor scientific leadership – the United States being the” Treatment “group and China as control.”
She added: “I certainly hope that, like any other experience, all the results will be carefully monitored, they will be made instantly available, honestly reported, and that a course correction will be instituted if these policies are not revealed with this high level (objective) that we all agree that we want to see.”
The pessimistic scenario takes place
McNutt discussed current developments in the context of the 2007 National Academies 2007 report Rose above the gathering storm – who examined growing international competition for scientific leadership and described different future scenarios on how the United States could do it.
The report “planned exactly what would happen as knowledge and low -cost work become widely available, and the response was erosion in American leadership,” said McNutt.
For many years, as part of what the report called a “commercial as usual” scenario – in which the United States continued to follow the Vannevar Bush game book – America has lost ground, while China and other nations began to follow the same manual, said McNutt. “The United States no longer dominates investments in R&D, and we have a lot of competition in the world.”
Now, she said, evidence suggests that American science is on the verge of the “pessimistic” scenario of the report-a worst case situation in which America falls behind the other nations.
The report has identified “triggers” that would lead to this pessimistic scenario – including the budgetary reductions in science, the attractive opportunities abroad that distance researchers from the United States, a tax environment that discourages R&D from industry and excessive regulations that divert time and research energy.
Most of these triggers occur, said McNutt. “Scientific budgets, in particular those which finance the community of university research, are planned for drastic reductions in order to finance tax alternatives and other priorities.”
More attractive opportunities abroad also remove researchers from the United States, said McNutt. “The uncertainties on the scientific budgets of next year, associated with cancellations of billions of dollars of research grants already hardened, cause an exodus of researchers from the United States”
And an excessive regulation that reduces research production “has been a reality for some time,” said McNutt. Seventy percent of all regulations imposed on researchers since 1991 have been published in the past 10 years, she noted.
What are the real results of this pessimistic scenario? According to the 2007 report, talents and investments will leave the United States, the United States will lose in the world markets, and finally our standard of living will begin to abandon, said McNutt.
“We don’t want to wait for the American standard of living to decrease to do something about this situation,” she said. “We have to act now.”
Actions necessary to rebuild American leadership
McNutt has identified seven measures that should be taken to rely on American forces, consolidate weak areas and regain the management of the nation in science.
Build on our culture of innovation. “One of my biggest concerns is that the reductions in the pending scientific budget will lead to an overly conservative system for selecting projects to be financed, which leads to high -risk and high reward funding,” said McNutt. Even now, strong competition for existing funds means that peers examiners tend to seek reasons not To finance the proposals, she said.
We need an analysis focused on data from various approaches to the revision of proposals, to ensure that truly innovative proposals are successful, said McNutt. “Peer exam is not the only choice, but that we have changed the peer exam or that we use another approach, it is important to finance innovation,” she said. “Any approach that we select must be based on evidence and expertise, not on opinion or ideology.”
Create a national research strategy. “No reasonable businessman would try to execute a business of several billion dollars without strategy, and yet that is exactly what we do with our research business,” said McNutt.
An American strategy should include all research funds – government, industry, philanthropy and others – and all research artists to take advantage of their individual forces and their interdependence. A strategy must also adapt to both basic research and applied research for the public good which has no reason for profit. “This is where the government must really intervene,” she said. “It is a national interest in its citizens to support this type of research.”
Improve education K-12. “I talked about it (in the state of the state of last year’s science), and frankly, that has not improved much,” said McNutt. The need for stronger scientific education does not only concern jobs, she explained. Science is so omnipresent in our society that people must be scientifically literate to make the right choices.
She talked about better approaches that should be adopted as soon as possible. For example, instead of teaching science as a set of facts, we have to rely on the innate curiosity of all children and teach them to be scientists by letting them detach to explore the world around them, using the scientific method, she said. Then, we have to alleviate very large classrooms for many teachers, as well as their discomfort with the scientific program. AI tools could help with this last challenge.
Build the domestic stem workforce. The United States does not develop enough STEM professionals to fill the available jobs, and it becomes difficult to count on immigration to do so, said McNutt.
As part of the construction of the national workforce, we must seriously rethink the STEM tracks to industry, she said. As a rule, STEM students looking for advanced training are mainly channeled in a system intended to create basic researchers, and they can leave without the skills necessary to work in industry. Now, some new programs help to give students these skills – such as business skills or skills related to clinical trials management – and these programs should be widened. We must also improve basic research career paths and “good size” laboratories for the number of available jobs, said McNutt.
In addition, national academies and other organizations have called for the authorization of a new version of the National Defense Education Act, which was adopted after the Soviet launch of Sputnik in 1957. The law created loans, scholarships and funds for nursery school education in the 12th year, and he helped the United States reach the Moon, said McNutt. “We are faced with another Spoutnik moment at the moment, and we have to invest in people, talent and institutions that will get us this next Moonshot.”
Reduce administrative formalities and widen the processes. Since the time that researchers have to spend on research, more than 40% have been spent on documents, said McNutt. And due to the ceiling on administrative costs, researchers cannot give these documents to the administrative staff of the university. “It is a truly poor use of training, time, talent and financing of researchers,” she said. We must rethink how to ensure regulatory compliance – for example, considering an audit approach or using AI to fill in the majority of forms, which the main investigators could then examine and sign.
Develop access to international resources. American retirement of international collaborations was a Uncant error, said McNutt. “There is no better time to make (these collaborations) than with the growing number of scientifically advanced nations and the growing cost of advanced installations.” She expressed her concern that with current budget cuts, the budgets of the facilities for the exploration of the oceans, space exploration and polar research will all be cut radically. Without international collaboration and cooperation, American research opportunities will undertake.
Rebuild confidence. We have to do it through the political spectrum, said McNutt. “I remember when science was a bipartite problem, and we have to do it again.” There was a certain rebound in the confidence of the public in science after a few uncomposed mistakes during the pandemic, she said, but unfortunately, the rebound was not uniform through the political spectrum.
We must assure people that science works for the benefit of all citizens, said McNutt. The most important thing that scientists can do now is to listen to everyday citizens and try to understand the problems facing today. Scientists must also share how science works to solve their problems. “Science offers hope for remedies for what people are dealing with, and the message we have to give is that the financing of science finances hope – hope for the future.”
Look at him Address of the state of science And The round table It followed.