White House Science Report Ignores Own Contradictions
A Golden Age Born from Contradiction
For more than seventy years, the foundation of American science rested on a single document. “Science, the Endless Frontier,” written in 1945 by Vannevar Bush, made the case that government must fund basic research. The idea was simple: scientists, left to follow their curiosity, would produce discoveries that industry could turn into prosperity and national security. That model built the atomic bomb, put men on the Moon, and created the internet. It also created a sprawling system of federal grants, university laboratories, and peer review that has grown steadily since World War II.
On Tuesday, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy released a report that claims this system is broken. [1] Titled “Science: A New Golden Age,” the document argues that the United States government-funded science enterprise has structural problems so severe that they require major changes. It positions itself as the spiritual successor to Bush’s 1945 blueprint. The report states that while the concepts from the original remain vital, the circumstances have changed so much that major revisions are needed in how the government implements science policy.
The contradiction is immediate. This same administration has proposed crippling funding cuts to research. It has also tried to enable political appointees to terminate grants that were awarded based on scientific merit. The report completely ignores these actions. It glosses over many things the administration is doing that harm scientific progress.
Silicon Valley’s Blueprint for Reform
The document identifies one genuine problem that researchers have discussed for years. Scientists spend too much time writing grant applications and performing administrative tasks. This takes time away from doing actual research. The report promises to relieve this burden by simplifying regulations and streamlining the grant application process.
Yet the report is remarkably vague. Its authors do not identify a single regulation that needs reform. They offer no specific example of a rule that wastes time.
Michael Kratsios, the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, formerly worked with Peter Thiel, a technology investor known for his skepticism of traditional research institutions. The report injects a Silicon Valley perspective on innovation into science policy, and developments in artificial intelligence are cited as necessitating a new approach to funding science.
The Research Community’s Next Test
The scientific community has long recognized the problem of administrative burden. The report acknowledges this reality but offers no path forward.
The result is an odd mix of ideas. Some parts of the document identify issues that have already been discussed as problems within the scientific community. Other parts are political grievances that do not belong in a science policy document. The report is unlikely to have anything like the impact of “Science, the Endless Frontier.”
The Office of Science and Technology Policy will now face the question of whether it can implement any of its promises. The research community will watch closely. Scientists who have spent years navigating the current grant system will test whether the administration can actually reduce bureaucratic hurdles.