The Cost of Killing ‘Silly Science’ - by Kristin O'Donoghue
SubscribeSign in
Extra Credit<br>The Cost of Killing ‘Silly Science’<br>The engine of American scientific progress requires fuel
Kristin O'Donoghue<br>Jun 10, 2026
164
Share
On April 24, all 22 members of the National Science Board (NSB) received an email “on behalf of President Donald J. Trump” terminating them, effective immediately.<br>The NSB advises and oversees the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), an independent federal agency that supports basic research. If you’ve ever searched for anything on Google, used GPS to find a restaurant, or gotten a vaccine, you’ve benefited from such research.<br>Firing the people who oversee that system has significant consequences for every American, as well as U.S. national interests.<br>The NSB was planning to meet May 5 to deliver an important report. The topic? The United States ceding scientific ground to China, a country that just outspent the U.S. on R&D for the first time in modern history.<br>If firing the people responsible for maintaining America’s scientific edge at the precise moment we’re falling behind sounds shortsighted, trust your instincts.<br>The Quiet Engine of American Discovery<br>In 1945, Vannevar Bush — head of the government’s wartime Office of Scientific Research and Development — wrote a report entitled Science: the Endless Frontier. The report made the case for a federal agency dedicated to basic research : the curiosity-driven pursuit of fundamental knowledge, with no specific product or application in mind. The report landed on President Truman’s desk, and, in 1950, Congress founded the NSB and the NSF.
Vannevar Bush (Source: Getty Images)<br>Federal investment in science didn’t start with Bush — it began nearly 175 years earlier. The Constitution empowers Congress to “promote the progress of science and useful arts” by protecting patents and copyrights. Thomas Jefferson sent Lewis and Clark west in 1804 not only to map the Louisiana Purchase but also to catalog the region’s natural history. Benjamin Franklin funded his own experiments but framed them as public goods. In sum, Bush’s proposal merely codified a system for funding a core principle already rooted in our country’s DNA.<br>Today, it’s hard to understate the importance of scientific research to the American economy. Since 1945, advances in science and technology have driven a staggering 85% of national economic growth.<br>The most successful venture capital firm in history, according to my boss, Scott Galloway, is Uncle Sam . One example: The U.S. government invested $3.8 billion in the Human Genome Project, which created more than 300,000 jobs and generated an economic output of $796 billion, giving America an ROI of 141 to 1. The NSF accounts for only 0.1% of federal spending but supports roughly a quarter of all federally funded basic research at U.S. colleges and universities.<br>The Federal Reserve estimates that government-supported research from the NSF and other agencies has had a return on investment of 150% to 300% since 1950, meaning for every dollar U.S. taxpayers invested, they got back between $1.50 and $3.00.
Eighty-one years ago, Bush wrote in his report that “basic research is the pacemaker of technological progress. ” The data – and history – agree with him, but the truth has never gotten in the way of Trump’s decision-making.<br>Mocking Science Is a Fool’s Errand<br>Writing off scientific research is not new. From 1975 to 1988, Sen. William Proxmire issued monthly “Golden Fleece Awards,” which targeted spending he considered wasteful.<br>The first Golden Fleece Award went to Elaine Hatfield and Ellen Berscheid, because the NSF awarded them $84,000 to study why people fall in love.<br>“I believe that 200 million other Americans want to leave some things in life a mystery,” Proxmire wrote, “and right on top of the things we don’t want to know is why a man falls in love with a woman and vice versa.”<br>Nevertheless, Hatfield and Berscheid’s research helped establish relationship science as a legitimate field. Their work provided the scientific foundation for a $6 billion industry many single people see as essential: dating apps.<br>Critics like Sen. Proxmire often took projects out of context and painted them in the silliest light they could. The award became synonymous with perceived government waste and impacted how the NSF distributed grants.<br>Case in point: in 2011, a video of a shrimp on an underwater treadmill went viral as an example of frivolous federal spending. It may sound silly, but the study was serious: It was designed to measure how shrimp responded to changes in water quality — a legitimate concern for the $80 billion shrimp industry.<br>For what it’s worth, the shrimp treadmill only cost $1,000. For comparison, in one month last year, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth spent more than $7 million on lobster, $15 million on steak, and $124,000 on ice cream machines.<br>Congressman Jim Cooper of Tennessee responded with his own award in...