The Rise of Tech Culture in American Science Has Started

The Trump administration recently announced the first round of “Genesis Mission” grants, allocating $5 billion to a variety of AI-driven science initiatives. This effort has been likened to the urgency and ambition of the Manhattan Project. Concurrently, Trump’s science adviser, Michael Kratsios, was on Capitol Hill promoting a vision for “A New Golden Age” of American science, emphasizing artificial intelligence, robotics, and nuclear energy while sidelining life sciences.

These announcements provide a clear insight into Trump’s vision for reshaping American science. They represent a broader campaign against the established research community, which has faced challenges such as funding cuts for “woke” or DEI projects, threats to university funding based on ideological grounds, restrictions on international researchers, and increased political control over federal funding. This has led to a gradual dismantling of the norms and institutions that have historically positioned the United States as a scientific leader.

Critics argue that this vision is flawed and contradictory, viewing it more as a politically motivated power grab than a genuine plan for scientific advancement. It treats public research like a startup, prioritizing quick, measurable results over the slow, unpredictable nature of fundamental scientific inquiry that has led to significant discoveries. Many researchers warn that this agenda could be detrimental to American research.

The Genesis Mission grants cover a wide range of fields, including drug discovery, biomedical science, energy, advanced materials, and robotics. The 278 selected projects, chosen from over 5,000 applications, aim to harness AI to speed up scientific discovery. The Energy Department, which spearheaded this funding, stated that the initiative will bring together national labs, industry, and academia to achieve breakthroughs in energy, discovery science, and national security. Major tech companies are also contributing resources to support this initiative.

Kratsios linked the Genesis Mission to the administration’s broader science agenda, describing it as the culmination of reforms outlined in its “Golden Age” manifesto. This document, which positions itself as a modern successor to Vannevar Bush’s influential 1945 report on federal research funding, suggests shifting support from institutions to individual scientists and increasing the role of private companies in research, while granting political appointees more power to block funding they oppose. AI is emphasized both as a tool for researchers and as a driver of discovery, with a push for government funds to favor AI applications and individual researchers over traditional academic institutions.

The manifesto promotes a results-oriented approach reminiscent of Silicon Valley startups, focusing on clear goals and rapid iteration. However, this contrasts sharply with the nature of scientific research, which often requires years or decades to reveal its significance and relies on a system that supports uncertain and exploratory work. The unpredictable nature of scientific outcomes means that some of the most important discoveries arise from research aimed at entirely different questions.

Claes de Vreese, a professor of AI and society, emphasized that a science funding model must recognize these differences. “You cannot use venture capital to force breakthroughs while virtually already selling the patent,” he stated.

This approach diverges from Bush’s advocacy for open-ended basic research, which was believed to ultimately lead to applied breakthroughs. The scientific framework built on this principle has been crucial in establishing the U.S. as a research powerhouse. However, this isn’t the first time the Trump administration has invoked Bush’s legacy to justify policies that threaten the system he helped create.

Some proposals within the agenda, such as reducing administrative burdens on scientists and expediting grant processes, have merit. Jason Shepherd, a neurobiology professor, noted that many scientists would agree on the need for more stability and faster peer review. However, he criticized the document for appearing to be crafted by political appointees without genuine consultation with the scientific community, warning that its business-like assumptions about science are misguided. “Academic science is different from VC-funded startups or tech companies,” he said.

This distinction is particularly relevant given Kratsios’ background. Unlike most science advisers, he lacks scientific credentials and has experience in tech policy and finance, having worked with a fund associated with a prominent Silicon Valley investor.

Researchers have expressed concerns that the report reflects a Silicon Valley mindset and a lack of understanding of scientific processes. Harvard professor Jeffrey Flier criticized the report for lacking a coherent vision of how science operates, calling it a “major threat” that seeks to politicize and control scientific inquiry.

Others share similar sentiments. Andreas Karch, a physics professor, pointed out that the government’s approach seems based on the flawed belief that future scientific breakthroughs will primarily emerge from the tech sector. He emphasized that while American tech is leading in its field, science and technology are not synonymous, and today’s scientific leadership is essential for tomorrow’s technological advancements.

The proposals themselves are also inconsistent. Shepherd highlighted contradictions, such as the plan to cut government support for “life sciences” while increasing funding for “foundational research in the biological sciences,” categories that overlap significantly. The lack of clear definitions for these terms leaves uncertainty about which fields would gain or lose funding.

The narrow focus on AI has also been criticized as misguided. Karch noted that while AI has the potential to accelerate progress, much of the science produced by AI currently lacks quality. He stressed the importance of human oversight, which is at risk due to funding cuts affecting universities that train these essential researchers. “We may end up in a situation where AI generates a few significant insights buried under a mountain of poor-quality work,” he warned, suggesting that government actions are hindering scientists’ ability to leverage new technologies effectively.

This funding initiative comes amid widespread cuts, grant cancellations, and upheaval within the federal funding system, creating turmoil for universities and research centers nationwide. Researchers find it hard to reconcile this reality with the administration’s claims of ushering in a new “golden age” for American science.

De Vreese, observing from outside the U.S. system, described the initiative as a further attempt to dismantle U.S. research universities, calling Kratsios’ vision a significant departure from a successful scientific model. He warned that this shift could lead to disastrous consequences.

Carl Bergstrom, a biology professor, echoed these concerns, stating that the plan fundamentally misrepresents the role of U.S. funding agencies in fostering a vibrant STEM ecosystem. He cautioned that the proposed changes could have far-reaching negative effects on the U.S. economy in the years to come.

The narrow focus on measurable outcomes and applications is a critical flaw in this new model. It treats science as a business, reflecting Trump’s approach to governance. Most researchers remain skeptical that this plan will lead to the promised golden age of American science, with many fearing it could inflict lasting harm. For certain groups, particularly those in close proximity to power, the future may appear more promising. De Vreese noted that this could represent a golden age for specific sectors, particularly tech and venture capitalists.

Shepherd concluded that “academic science cannot be replaced by a business model.” While many researchers share this view, the Trump administration seems intent on pursuing this path regardless.