The battle over science funding – how much and for what kinds of science – under the Trump administration is heating up. Today, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) labeled a potential Trump plan to slash funding along the lines of a Heritage Foundation blueprint as harmful to U.S. innovation and competitiveness. Last week, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee blasted NSF for past “frivolous and wasteful” projects, while still affirming NSF’s role as the bedrock of bedrock of taxpayer-funded basic science.

The emerging tug of war over science funding directions isn’t likely to diminish soon as competing forces struggle to influence the new administration’s policy. NSF invests about $7 billion of public funds each year on research projects and related activities. ITIF’s just released report (Bad Blueprint: Why Trump Should Ignore the Heritage Plan to Gut Federal Investment) takes direct aim at the Heritage Foundation plans (Blueprint for Balance) said to underpin Trump thinking on science and technology funding.

ITIF: “There is no doubt that many federal programs, including some that support business, could be cut, or even eliminated, with little or no negative effect on economic growth. But that doesn’t mean that most could. In fact, many programs are intended to compensate for serious market failures and effectively advance one or more of three key national goals: competitiveness, productivity, and innovation. Rather than being cut or eliminated, such programs should be improved and expanded.

“Such nuance and pragmatism, however, are not Heritage’s strengths; doctrinaire ideology is. Heritage’s analysis to support its efforts to cut $10 trillion from the deficit over 10 years is marked by profound misunderstandings about markets, technology, and the global economy. Markets sometimes work wonders, but they sometimes fail. They fail to provide sufficient incentives for innovation and knowledge creation. In an environment marked by financial market short-termism, markets fail to foster long-term investments in people and capabilities. And even if markets acting alone did maximize economic welfare, that doesn’t mean that maximization will occur on U.S. shores.”

Rep. Smith’s commentary (Fund science for a new millennium in America: Lamar Smith) presumably more reflective of the Trump position, was published in USA Today and posted on the committee web site; it seems less an attack on funding levels than a clear directive to NSF to focus on applied research directly connected to U.S. competitiveness – defining the latter has always been a matter of debate.

Excerpt: “Despite the U.S. government spending more on research and development than any other country, American pre-eminence in several fields is slipping. Other countries are focusing investments on new technologies, advanced scientific and manufacturing facilities, and harnessing their workforces to go into STEM fields. For example, last year China launched the fastest supercomputer in the world, five times faster than any supercomputer in the United States.

“Business as usual is not the answer. NSF must be as nimble and innovative as the speed of technology, and as open and transparent as information in the digital age. NSF Director France Cordova has publicly committed NSF to accountability and transparency and restoring its original mission to support science in the national interest…When NSF is only able to fund one out of every five proposals submitted by scientists, why did it award $225,000 to study animal photos in National Geographic or $920,000 to study textile-making in Iceland during the Viking era? Why did studying tourism in northern Norway warrant $275,000 of limited federal funds?

“These grants and hundreds like them might be worthwhile projects, but how are they in the national interest and how can they justify taxpayer dollars? The federal government should not fund this type of research at the expense of other potentially ground-breaking science.”

Link to ITIF report: https://itif.org/publications/2017/02/27/trump-administration-would-torpedo-us-growth-if-it-adopts-heritage

Link to Heritage Foundation report: http://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/report/blueprint-balance-federal-budget-2017

Link to Rep. Smith commentary: https://science.house.gov/news/in-the-news/fund-science-new-millennium-america-lamar-smith