For much of the last century, the United States has been a global leader in scientific research and innovation. American scientists have consistently published more research, received more citations, earned more patents, and won more Nobel Prizes than those from any other country. This scientific output has contributed to economic growth and improvements in quality of life both domestically and internationally.
However, historians note that this dominance is a relatively recent development. Cathryn Carson, chair of the History Department at UC Berkeley, explains that prior to World War II, federal involvement in science was limited mostly to practical applications such as coastal surveys and agricultural programs. “Up through the 1930s, the idea that the federal government would put any money into either universities or industry science was actually anathema in some quarters. It was seen as inappropriate for the federal government to be tinkering with those parts of civil society by putting money in that served the government’s purposes,” Carson said.
W. Patrick McCray, a history professor at UC Santa Barbara, points out that foundational scientific work in fields like physics and astronomy often took place abroad. “Through the early part of the 20th century…the U.S. wasn’t really strong in those areas,” McCray noted.
The shift came during World War II when national security concerns prompted increased federal investment in science. According to Carson: “World War II completely changed the bargain…The system we have now of federal contracts to universities to do basic research, and the continuing tight relationships and overlaps between university scientists and federal policymakers, was all set up during World War II.”
After the war, President Franklin D. Roosevelt tasked his science advisor Vannevar Bush with outlining a postwar strategy for science policy. Bush’s report “Science: The Endless Frontier” provided a framework for ongoing federal support for research.
Carson explained that government funding was not only about immediate results but also about building expertise: “You might think that the federal government is most interested in applicable research that immediately leads to new weapons or new products. But federal leaders realized that they were actually not just investing in the products of research. They were investing in the people.”
McCray added: “They recognized we needed to have a cadre of trained scientists and engineers and need to keep them fed and paid until the next conflict eventually breaks out.”
By the 1960s, these investments amounted to about two percent of U.S. GDP spent on research and development—a figure supported by historical data (https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20206/u-s-r-d-international-context). The rationale for this spending was rooted in anticipated benefits for health, economic growth, and national security.
Examples cited include Tom Brock’s discovery of heat-resistant bacteria at Yellowstone National Park—work funded by basic research grants—which later enabled key developments like polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technology used widely today.
Federal funding also played a major role in creating industries such as microelectronics and biotechnology. As Carson noted: “Silicon Valley was built on microelectronics and aerospace, both funded by the Defense Department…All this effort went into building electronics that would serve the military then got turned over to the consumer market in the 1970s and 80s.”
International competition grew after World War II as countries like Germany, Japan, and Russia increased their own investments in science and technology.
Carson discussed why maintaining leadership matters: “There are two ways to think about that…One is the ‘first mover’ advantage…Also, so much of scientific research isn’t about just discoveries, but it’s about making an initial discovery better…”
Historically, peer review panels composed of scientists determined what projects received funding—a process now facing political challenges. Carson observed: “We’ve had a self-governing body of scientists…I think the consensus that science was a route to national well-being…was widely shared by people across the political spectrum until very recently.”
Recently proposed cuts could significantly impact university-based research efforts across America (https://www.science.org/content/article/us-house-panel-advances-bill-would-slash-nsf-budget-half). Since January 2025 alone billions in grants have been paused or canceled; further reductions are under consideration by Congress.
McCray warned about potential consequences: “One way these cuts could hurt the United States economically is if it makes it so this is no longer a place where people from other countries can come to take advantage of our scientific resources.” He added: “But I think the more pernicious effect is to degrade the value of experts and expertise…It’s easy to forget that U.S. leadership isn’t some fixed, unchanging feature…It has a history…and like any other system, it can be degraded.”
As Congress debates future budgets for science agencies (https://www.aip.org/fyi/2024/fy25-budget-request-overview), experts caution that reversing decades-long progress could prove difficult if current trends continue.
