For much of the past century, the United States has led the world in scientific research, citations, patents, and Nobel Prizes. This leadership has contributed to national prosperity and advancements that have benefited people globally. However, experts warn that this dominance is now at risk due to recent federal actions targeting university research and the agencies that fund it.
Cathryn Carson, chair of the History Department at UC Berkeley, and W. Patrick McCray, a history professor at UC Santa Barbara, provided historical context on how the U.S. became a leader in science and what might happen if current trends continue.
McCray explained that while the federal government has supported science since early in U.S. history, those investments were mostly practical—such as coastal surveys or agricultural programs. Basic science disciplines like physics and astronomy were not strong areas for American institutions until well into the 20th century. “Through the early part of the 20th century, what we think of as basic science — areas like physics, astronomy, those disciplines that ask these fundamental questions about how things work — the U.S. wasn’t really strong in those areas,” McCray said.
Carson noted that before World War II, federal funding for university or industry science was often seen as inappropriate interference in civil society: “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.”
The outbreak of World War II changed this dynamic. As threats from Nazi Germany grew more apparent in the late 1930s, federal investment increased rapidly across fields such as aeronautics and nuclear physics—including projects at Berkeley itself. Carson described this period as a turning point: “World War II completely changed the bargain… The system we have now of federal contracts to universities to do basic research… was all set up during World War II.”
After WWII ended, President Roosevelt tasked his advisor Vannevar Bush with developing a long-term plan for U.S. science policy. Bush’s report “Science: The Endless Frontier” laid out principles for postwar investment in research infrastructure—a blueprint followed for decades after.
Federal leaders recognized they needed not just new technologies but also a steady supply of trained scientists and engineers ready for future challenges. “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,” McCray said.
By the 1960s, federal spending on research reached about two percent of GDP—a level justified by claims that investments would benefit health, economic growth, and national security.
McCray pointed out examples where basic research funded by government led to significant advances much later on: “I tell my students about Tom Brock… The bacteria that he discovered became… a key part in a biological technique developed in the 1980s called polymerase chain reaction… PCR was a huge step in… biotech industry… used in 2020 to develop a vaccine for COVID.”
Carson added that industries such as Silicon Valley owe their origins largely to defense-related funding: “Silicon Valley was built on microelectronics and aerospace both funded by Defense Department.”
Other countries also increased their investments after WWII; nations like Japan became global leaders in microelectronics by the 1970s.
On why it matters which country leads innovation efforts Carson said: “There are two ways to think about that… One is ‘first mover’ advantage… Also… having a system of innovation that can play at all stages… helps keep domestic companies in lead over global competitors.”
Historically peer review among scientists determined what got funded but recent years have seen growing distrust toward scientific self-governance: “It’s only been past few years we’ve seen rising lack of trust,” Carson observed.
Since January this year billions worth of grants have been paused or cancelled nationwide; Congress is considering budget proposals cutting some agency funds by up to half. Experts believe these cuts could make America less attractive for international talent—and erode respect for expertise itself.
“This whole history isn’t just about money but ambition behind it,” McCray said. He warned cuts could undermine America’s status as an international destination for top researchers—and weaken public trust in expert knowledge production overall: “Science is production of reliable knowledge about natural world… What makes it reliable is fact experts make this knowledge…”
He concluded with caution regarding complacency: “It’s easy to forget U.S leadership isn’t some fixed unchanging feature… It has history… it can be degraded… And sadly that’s what’s happening now.”
