The technologicalization of American science had officially begun

Trump administration Unveiling the first Genesis Mission scholarships. On Thursday, $5 billion was directed toward hundreds of scientific projects that rely on artificial intelligence in a White House effort described As “similar in urgency and ambition to the Manhattan Project.” Around the same time, Trump’s science advisor Michael Kratsios It was on Capitol Hill Sell ​​legislators on an equally great promise: “A new golden age“From American science, a science that would prioritize artificial intelligence, robotics, and nuclear energy and downplay the importance of life sciences.

Together, the two ads provide the clearest picture yet of how Donald Trump wants to reshape American science. They represent the last front in A A broader war on the research establishment – A project that worked to suppress “woke” projects or DEI projects, Funding is threatened to universities, researchers and projects on ideological grounds, which has led to a reduction in the flow of international funding students and Researchersand He handed unprecedented control of federal funding to political appointees. The result was the gradual and systematic dismantling of the established norms and institutions that, for all their faults, had helped transform the United States into the world’s scientific superpower.

The vision is ill-considered and contradictory, researchers say, less a blueprint for scientific innovation than a politicized power grab that fundamentally misunderstands how science works. He treats public research more like a Silicon Valley startup than a public good, favoring measurable returns and speed over the slow, uncertain, and unpredictable work that has produced some of the most important discoveries in history. Far from reviving American science, they warn that this agenda could be disastrous for American research.

the Genesis mission Grants Extended fields Ranging from drug discovery and biomedical sciences to energy, advanced materials and robotics. Projects 278 It is said Chosen from over 5,000 apps, they all share a common premise: leveraging artificial intelligence to accelerate scientific discoveries. The Department of Energy, which led this round of funding, said the project will unite national laboratories, industry and academia to achieve “breakthroughs in energy dominance, discovery science, and national security.” Technology companies Included Google, Microsoft, and OpenAI They also contribute millions of dollars in computing, AI credits and other support to the initiative.

Cratsius Explicitly linked program to the administration’s broader scientific agenda, describing the Genesis mission as “the culmination of the reforms proposed in the administration’s ‘golden age’.” statement. Designed as a modern successor to Vannevar Bush’s 1945 policy report “Science, the Endless Frontier,” which formed much of the postwar federal research funding system, this lengthy document proposes shifting support away from foundations and toward individual scientists, while giving private companies a greater role in directing and conducting research, and giving political appointees more power to block grants they disagree with. AI is featuring heavily, both as a tool for scientists and as an engine of discovery itself, and Cratsius has encouraged government funds to increasingly go to the use of AI and to individual researchers, rather than to universities, the traditional centers of scholarship and research.

More broadly, the statement favors a goal-oriented, results-based approach that resembles Silicon Valley startups more than traditional scientific institutions. Venture capital and startup culture are all about identifying promising people, projects, and ideas, setting clear goals with measurable goals, moving quickly, constantly iterating, and cutting work that seems unlikely to deliver results. Science works differently. Basic research can take years or decades before its significance or practical implications become clear, and requires a system capable of supporting work of uncertain, even questionable, value. Their outcomes are not always predictable, and some of the most important discoveries emerge serendipitously from research that seeks to ask completely different questions.

The science funding system needs to take these differences into account, said Claes de Vries, professor of artificial intelligence and society at the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands. “You can’t use venture capital to force breakthroughs when you’re actually selling the patent.”

This model also stands in stark contrast to Bush’s advocacy of open basic research without regard to immediate gains, on the grounds that such work would ultimately lead to applied discoveries. The scientific system built on this principle is what helped transform the United States into the world’s research superpower. However, this is not the first time the Trump administration has done this Citing Bush’s legacy To sell policies that would dismantle the system he helped create.

Some of its proposals have obvious appeal, including easing administrative burdens on scientists, speeding up the grant-making process, and making the system more flexible. Jason Shepherd, a professor of neuroscience at the University of Utah, said: Edge “There are certainly some aspirations in this agenda that most American scientists agree on: we need more stability, faster peer review, and more incentives to do high-risk science.”

But Shepherd said the document appeared to be “written by political appointees without any real consultation with scientists,” and warned that its scientific-as-business assumptions were misplaced. “Academic science is different from startups or venture capital-funded technology companies.”

It is an important distinction to take into account Cratesius’s background. Unlike most White House science advisers, so is Kratsios Not a scientist In any sense of the word, she has no academic qualifications. He has a background in technology policy and finance, having spent part of his working life at a fund managed by Silicon Valley investor Peter Thiel.

Researchers say the report is permeated by a Silicon Valley mentality, as well as a profound lack of scientific understanding. “The report contains no vision of how science works,” said Jeffrey Flair, a Harvard professor and former dean of the university’s medical school, adding that it “seems to be unaware” of the needs of scientific research in the academic environment in order to thrive. “This is absolutely crazy as an approach to reforming scientific funding and operations in the United States,” he said, calling the report’s proposals a “huge threat” and an attempt to politicize and control science.

Other researchers I spoke to feel similarly. The government’s entire approach appears to be based on the “misguided belief that future scientific breakthroughs will come from the technology sector,” said Andreas Karsch, a physics professor at the University of Texas at Austin. Edge. “While American technology is also a leader in its field, technology and science are not the same,” he said, adding that today’s scientific leadership will ensure tomorrow’s technological leadership. “There is little evidence to suggest that our big tech companies, despite their amazing successes, can do both.”

This does not mean that the proposals are all that logical either. “The agenda is full of contradictions,” Shepherd said, pointing to a proposal that proposes radically reducing government support for “life sciences,” while increasing support for “foundational research in the biological sciences,” two categories that overlap significantly. Neither report nor The White House determines These terms or explain the areas in which you will gain or lose funding.

Karsh said the narrow focus on artificial intelligence is also “misleading.” While there is certainly an opportunity to accelerate progress, he said, “The problem now is that most of the science that AI does is a complete failure.” Supervision by humans seems “absolutely basic,” he said, but those humans are primarily trained by universities whose funding has been cut. “We may end up in a situation where AI will have some key ideas buried under mountains of cliffs, and the number of people with the experience and knowledge to differentiate between the two may quickly dwindle,” he said, adding that actions by the government are actually hindering scientists’ abilities to take advantage of these powerful new technologies.

The funding and document arrive amid sweeping cuts, grant eliminations, and institutional turmoil across the entire federal funding system, shaking universities, research centers, and government agencies across the country. Researchers say it’s difficult to reconcile reality with the administration’s promise of a new “golden age” for American science.

“As an outsider to the American system, this appears to be another attempt to dismantle American research universities,” De Vries said. He described Cratsios’s vision as a “fundamental departure from the highly successful American science model” that seems like another attempt to “turn the American research university model on its head.”

This departure could lead to disaster. said Carl Bergstrom, a professor of biology at the University of Washington Edge The plan misunderstands and distorts the role that US funding agencies play in scientific endeavors. While it works in part to foster technological discoveries and medical breakthroughs — key priorities in the report — it is also designed to “develop and sustain a vibrant STEM ecosystem in the United States,” Bergstrom said. “This plan undermines much of that role, and will have disastrous effects that ripple throughout the American economy in the years to come.”

This narrow view of science, which focuses on measurable results, applications and returns, is precisely what this new paradigm is wrong with. He treats science like a business, which makes sense Given what Trump said He runs the country like one.

Most of the researchers I spoke to Edge They were deeply skeptical that this plan would usher in a promised golden age for American science, with many warning that it could cause lasting damage. For other groups, especially those closer to power, the future may look brighter. “This appears to be a golden age for certain groups, and it likely is for tech and venture capitalists,” De Vries said.

“Academic science cannot be replaced by a business model,” Shepherd said. Most research scientists seem to agree with this sentiment, but the Trump administration seems intent on trying anyway.