The State of Science: Moving Beyond ‘Good Faith’ Negotiations

Challenging an implicit assumption in ongoing dialogues on the future of American science: do we really want the same thing?

In prepared remarks delivered at the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) on May 19, 2025, Michael Kratsios, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, asserted that “We want America’s scientists to be the best in the world.” In the dialogue that followed, Kratsios justified the administration’s approach to Marcia McNutt, President of the NAS, explaining how DOGE had discovered “large amounts of money … that are not in the national interest”. Kratsios went on to describe this as “a real moment of clarity for the community to understand that the system as it exists today has been pursuing a wide variety of scientific endeavors that we as a community can generally agree are probably not the right direction.”

McNutt did not forcibly contest the assertion; her first response was to say: “I agree.”

State of the Science, June 3, https://www.nationalacademies.org/event/44894_06-2025_the-state-of-the-science-address-2025

The dialogue between Kratsios and McNutt operates given what appears to be implicit conventions, e.g., Kratsios use of ‘we’ and ‘the community’ implies that the administration, scientists, and presumably the public are on the same page with respect to goals. The conversation is civil and, for the most part, consists of Kratsios issuing critiques of science and scientists and McNutt reinforcing the central points or asking for clarification about specific decisions that may have gone too far. If “we” want the same thing, then there is reason to believe that these kind of dialogues will facilitate steps to improve science, research, and America’s innovation economy.

But what if the White House’s vision for science in America is fundamentally different? What if the administration has little respect for federally funded scientists who continue to make discoveries that improve our health, economy, and national defense? If so, then the strategic basis for decision-making by independent science institutions, their leadership, and advisory boards must shift. Whether by tacitly agreeing or remaining silent, professional organizations risk legitimizing arguments driven by political ideology rather than articulating evidence-based analysis on how to sustain, support, and improve U.S.-based laboratories, programs, and scientists.

In his prepared remarks and in the dialogue that followed, Kratsios argued that “spending more money on the wrong things is far worse than spending less money on the right things.” In other words, the White House is operating under a mindset that federal budgets for research currently support the ‘wrong’ things & must be replaced with the ‘right’ things. The White House and DOGE have identified what they consider the ‘wrong’ things through keyword searches, unilateral attempts to reduce research infrastructure, and through collective punishment of institutions and potentially entire states. The White House’s FY 2026 budget proposal looks beyond punishment this year and slashes support for research in years to come, e.g., reducing support for NIH by more than 40%, NSF by more than 50%, and NASA by more than 25%. The proposal will have consequences. Cutting tens of billions of dollars in federal support will lead to hundreds of thousands of lost jobs nationwide and cede leadership in a global competition across sciences, engineering, and medical R&D.

The aspirational narrative that we should share the same goal was reinforced a few weeks later as part of the State of the Science symposium and panel on Tuesday June 3 held in the Kavli Auditorium at the headquarters of the National Academy of Sciences on Constitution Ave. In the opening moments of her prepared remarks, with Kratsios’ words displayed on slides for the audience to read, McNutt made the following claim: “Everyone, whether it’s scientists or non-scientists alike wants U.S. science to be the world leader. By being the world leader, we can innovate and develop the future that we all want to see. My experience has been that when everyone agrees on that topline goal, magic can happen. The only debate is on how to get there.” But despite the opportunity, McNutt did not explicitly connect the incompatibility of devastating cuts to science in the White House FY 2026 budget proposal with the supposed topline goal articulated by Kratsios a few weeks before.

The audience had to wait until the discussion for one panelist – Heather Wilson (President of University of Texas-El Paso and former Congresswoman from New Mexico) – to make the observation: “One of the other things that struck me … is the inconsistency between the President’s policy statements about ushering in … a golden age of innovation and the proposal that went to Capitol Hill in the budget.” She went on to say “The President put forward some suggestions, but there is an inconsistency between the policy and the numbers. And now, the Congress needs to step up, and pursue the policy with sufficient budget to advance American science.”

Wilson’s remarks were met with applause in the auditorium.

Are we really spending more money on the wrong things by supporting life-saving NIH-funded medical research? Are we really keeping the right things when the administration proposes to slash NSF-supported research in biology, geology, ocean sciences, engineering, mathematics, physics, economics, and computing in communities all across the United States? Perhaps the White House would argue that if a grant is cut, that means that the grant was not a priority. That kind of post-hoc justification is incompatible with what is really happening – large-scale terminations of studies on Alzheimer’s disease, cancer, vaccine development and distribution, advanced manufacturing, robotics, computing, and more. Finally, how will we inspire the next generation of scientists when the White House intends to slash or eliminate STEM education funding, e.g., the FY 2026 budget proposal reduces the STEM engagement budget of NASA from $143M in FY 2025 to zero (yes - $0).

Earlier in the Spring, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine published an interview with McNutt in which she described how NASEM is addressing threats to science. In her words: “We are working to reach officials in the administration who will be sensitive to the likely impacts of these actions on the health, security, economic opportunity, and well-being of all Americans.” While lines of communication must remain open, the scientific research community and leadership of major science organizations must update their prior beliefs. The administration is operating under the premise that American science has lost its way. The administration does not currently share the same topline goal with scientists, scientific organizations, and the public who, by and large, are in favor of federal support for independent science research conducted by scientists working in universities, hospitals, and research institutes all across the U.S.

If leadership in major science organizations continue to hew closely to administration talking points as a means to steer policy decisions, the public may perceive that bad-faith arguments of the White House have broader legitimacy amongst scientists. Getting in sync with the current administration would seem to require that American science becomes yet another bureaucratic instrument operating in service of political ideology. If this happens, then America won’t really be in the business of doing science anymore and we certainly won’t be the best in the world.

Update, June 9th evening: NIH Director Bhattacharya responded to The Bethesda Declaration today with a tweet that began: “We all want NIH to succeed.” This phraseology reinforces a central point here: the administration continues to signal a shared interest in an accepted topline goal while issuing policies and proposals that are inconsistent with the goal.