All Opinion pieces and Letters to the Editor reflect ONLY the thoughts of the writer, and not those of the Stratford Crier or its Editorial Board.
By Paul Oestreicher, Ph.D.
Oestreicher Communications
In the push to increase “government efficiency,” many of our elected — and unelected — leaders are equating cuts with savings. In the case of research, they could not be more mistaken, and it will cost us dearly.
The United States has long been a global leader in biomedical and technological innovation, a position driven by significant federal investments in research and development. However, under the new Administration, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) recently announced a policy that caps indirect cost rates at 15% for all grants. If the court challenges fail, the new rule will replace previously negotiated rates, which often ranged from 25% to over 50%, with some institutions, such as Harvard University, having rates as high as 69%.
Indirect costs, essential for maintaining research infrastructure, staffing, and resources, are not simply bureaucratic expenses; they form the backbone of America’s innovation ecosystem. Dr. Richard Huganir, the director of the Department of Neuroscience at Johns Hopkins University, characterized the cuts as “the apocalypse of American science,” warning that they could lead to job losses and hinder future scientific discoveries. If we permit the gutting of the NIH and other scientific agencies, we risk falling behind in the global innovation race.
America’s leadership in science and medicine has never been an accident; it’s the result of decades of investment in research and innovation. Cutting funding under the pretext of fiscal responsibility is not only shortsighted, but also economically and strategically self-destructive.
A Quick Look at a Few Facts
There are piles of data about the positive impact of basic and translational research. They include:
Science Drives Economic Growth and Job Creation. The Human Genome Project, for example, had a $141 return for every $1 invested, contributing nearly $1 trillion to the economy and laying the foundation for modern genomics-based medicine.
National Security Depends on Scientific Leadership. Research in biotechnology, cybersecurity, and quantum computing is critical to maintaining military and economic dominance. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) funded the early development of the internet, GPS, and artificial intelligence — technologies that now underpin both commercial and defense industries.
China Is Significantly Increasing its R&D Expenditure. It is on pace to surpass the U.S. in R&D (Research and Development) spending, with China’s global share rising by 22% and the U.S. share declining by 8% from 2000 to 2023.
Cutting Research Costs More in the Long Run. One of the most misguided assumptions about cutting science funding is that it will reduce government spending. In reality, preventative research saves billions in healthcare and emergency response costs. CDC data show vaccination programs save $10 for every $1 invested by preventing costly hospitalizations and lost productivity.
Science Funding Benefits Every State and District. Science funding isn’t a partisan issue — it benefits communities across the country. NIH and NSF (National Science Foundation) grants support universities, hospitals, and biotech firms in both urban and rural districts, creating high-paying jobs and fostering innovation hubs.
Science funding used to enjoy broad bipartisan support. Even prominent conservative voices have recognized the value of research funding. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich once called cutting medical research “irrational conservatism,” emphasizing that funding the NIH is one of the best ways to reduce long-term healthcare costs and improve national well-being.
Reframing the Debate
What should be determined by hard facts is now challenged by personal beliefs. Hyper-partisanship has widened divisions and built barriers to the point where facts matter less and opinions matter more. Maybe it’s time for a new approach.
Cognitive linguist George Lakoff emphasizes the power of framing in shaping public perception. He argues that how issues are presented dramatically influences how they are understood and acted upon. So, here’s a thought:
Instead of discussing science funding as government “spending,” we should frame it as an investment in America’s future — one that brings substantial economic, security, and health benefits. We could begin with messaging around:
- Public-Private Partnerships: Numerous biotech startups and Fortune 500 companies depend on federally funded research to catalyze innovation and create value.
- Fiscal Responsibility: Preventative research saves taxpayer dollars by reducing emergency healthcare costs and economic losses from preventable diseases.
- Global Competitiveness: Investing in research ensures the U.S. remains a leader in medical and technological advancements rather than ceding ground to China or other competitors.
Moving from Messaging to Mobilizing
With federal research funding at risk, advocacy must move beyond words to action. Scientists, healthcare professionals, business leaders, and the public all have a role to play in ensuring continued investment in innovation, economic growth, and public health.
Here are a few ways you can get involved:
Engage with Policymakers: Lawmakers respond to constituent concerns, so make your voice heard. Contact your representatives — especially those on the House and Senate Appropriations Committees — to emphasize the economic, national security, and health benefits of research funding.
Find your House representative
Find your Senator
See who serves on the House Appropriations Committee
See who serves on the Senate Appropriations Committee
Participate in Science Advocacy Groups: Organizations dedicated to research advocacy offer resources, coordinated campaigns, and direct lobbying opportunities.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
Coalition for Life Sciences (CLS)
Share Your Stories: Public awareness can influence policymaker decisions. If you have stories to share, use social media, blogs, or community forums to highlight how research funding impacts patients, businesses, and scientific progress. Add hashtags like #FundScience, #ResearchMatters, and #InvestInInnovation to amplify your message.
Attend Town Halls and Public Meetings: Legislators frequently hold town halls — either in person or online — to engage with constituents. Participating in these events and posing relevant questions about research funding can encourage them to prioritize science in budget conversations. Check the dates and times through the offices of your elected officials.
Leaders and policymakers who genuinely care about America’s health, global competitiveness, national security, and long-term economic stability should regard science funding not as a cost, but as one of the most powerful investments we can make for our future.
