A new White House blueprint for scientific research is drawing mixed reactions from Massachusetts scientists, with some praising its focus on innovation and others fearful it presages a shift away from the longstanding research partnership between the federal government and universities.<\/p>\n
The 120-plus-page report, \u201cScience: A New Golden Age,\u201d<\/a> released Tuesday, would drastically reshape the country\u2019s approach to science funding by making large investments in artificial intelligence, robotics, and private-public partnerships. It also proposes additional spending in science and technology education, programs for early-career scientists, and backing unconventional ideas through a \u201cgolden ticket\u201d program that rewards higher-risk research.<\/p>\n Those involved in industry partnerships on AI say the recommendations validate their work. Other scientists, however, raised concerns about changes they said could further kneecap a research system<\/a> that has long been held up as a model around the world. <\/p>\n \u201cThese folks in this administration have figured out ways to write stuff that kind of looks good on the surface if you skim it,\u201d said Victor Ambros, a Nobel Prize winner and professor of natural sciences at the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School. \u201cBut it\u2019s cleverly designed to advance an agenda.\u201d<\/p>\n A \u2018teardown\u2019 of the system<\/p>\n Billed as \u201cthe first comprehensive rethinking of the U.S. science and technology enterprise in over 80 years,\u201d the plan comes amid a broader push by the Trump administration to expand its efforts to slash federal funding for disfavored topics and academic institutions<\/a>. In May, the administration proposed letting political appointees decide on research funding<\/a>, mandating each grant and contract align with White House priorities, and allowing the executive branch to disregard external scientific reviews and end funding at will. <\/p>\n On Friday, The New York Times reported that the Trump administration had canceled more than 200 grants from the Energy Department last year solely because the recipient was located in a state that voted for Kamala Harris in the 2024 election.<\/p>\n The new White House report aims to prioritize the \u201cindividual scientist over legacy institutions\u201d and focus on fields such as the biological sciences \u2014 including genomics and neuroscience \u2014 quantum information science, and nuclear energy.<\/p>\n \u201cWhat we are trying to do here is laying the groundwork for new methods of doing science and figuring out which ones can produce the greatest output for the American scientific community,\u201d Michael Kratsios, director of the White House\u2019s Office of Science and Technology Policy and author of the report, told lawmakers in a hearing on Wednesday<\/a>.<\/p>\n But experts say moving away from funding university-based research would likely do more harm to scientific development<\/a> than good. <\/p>\n The Trump administration is trying to \u201creplace a system that has worked to the envy of the world,\u201d said Ambros, whose Nobel-winning research was funded by the National Institutes of Health. <\/p>\n The new report is \u201cnot a renovation\u201d of the system, he said. \u201dIt\u2019s a teardown.\u201d <\/p>\n The proposal appears to approach scientific research in the same way a private equity firm would a potential investment target, said Colette Delawalla, founder and chief executive of Stand Up for Science, an advocacy group. <\/p>\n For instance, in a letter introducing the report, Kratsios wrote that federal research agencies should \u201cevaluate their own performance as capital allocators, test new ways of making grants, and construct portfolios with the intentionality of a serious investor.\u201d<\/p>\n Administration officials seem to be looking for areas where the most money might be made and where the \u201cfat\u201d can be cut, Delawalla said. <\/p>\n Shifting funding from academic institutions to individuals doesn\u2019t make sense, she added; Universities provide critical infrastructure and resources for researchers to conduct their work. <\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s like hiring Tom Brady and then not having a stadium for him to play in and not having a football,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n Some experts worry the report will be followed by a federal budget request that shifts dollars away from universities and toward private companies.<\/p>\n \u201cThere\u2019s winners and losers in every policy,\u201d said Scott Delaney, cofounder of Grant Witness, which tracks terminated scientific research grants. \u201cUniversities are losers under this policy \u2014 like full stop.\u201d <\/p>\n Delaney noted Massachusetts, a leader in university-led scientific innovation, receives the most federal funding for science<\/a> per capita. <\/p>\n \u201cNow, Massachusetts also has a very robust private sector, biotech sector, pharma,\u201d he said. \u201cI do think there\u2019s reason to believe that some of those institutions would benefit.\u201d <\/p>\n Joanne Padr\u00f3n Carney, chief government relations officer for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said the impacts of the plan remain unclear. <\/p>\n \u201cThis report proposes an untested experiment on a national scale to reshape the innovation ecosystem,\u201d Carney said in an email. \u201cAs with any experiment, it could yield results that are difficult to predict or create damage that could take decades to address.\u201d <\/p>\n \u2018AI revolution\u2019<\/p>\n To prepare for an \u201cAI revolution,\u201d the administration calls for integrating AI into every stage of the scientific process, from drug discovery to analyzing data at NASA. Kratsios also announced a new $5 billion commitment from the federal government to make that happen, funding the administration\u2019s so-called Genesis Mission.<\/p>\n Sam Scarpino did not read the report as a threat to funding at Northeastern University, where he\u2019s the executive director of the Institute for Experiential AI. If anything, Kratsios\u2019s vision validates the work he does, he said.<\/p>\n Scarpino and his team work with companies to both deploy and develop new AI tools with human oversight.<\/p>\n \u201cArtificial intelligence is something of an existential moment for universities, and I think a report like this maybe gives some confidence that we\u2019re heading in a reasonable direction,\u201d Scarpino said<\/p>\n To him, the road map sketched by Kratsios leads to an \u201cintegrated, diversified research ecosystem\u201d that includes both private sector businesses and universities, without one coming at the expense of the other.<\/p>\n \u201cIf we frame this report as that, it is very positive,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n At Boston University, Gianluca Stringhini has received funding from OpenAI to conduct research in artificial intelligence focused on cybersecurity. His work seems to embody the exact model Kratsios is promoting. <\/p>\n But partnerships between industry and academia only work with adequate support for both, said Stringhini. He is worried by recent funding cuts to scientific research and said most ideas that can be brought to market, such as his partnership with OpenAI, have been the product of years of academic inquiry. In an academic lab, his team has time to test new models and scrutinize results. Inherently, that takes time.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s good to look at industry partnerships and something else than basic traditional academic research. But there needs to be basic academic research as well,\u201d he said. \u201cOtherwise, it is kind of a house of cards, and everything will fall apart.\u201d<\/p>\n Allyson Chiu can be reached at allyson.chiu@globe.com<\/a>. Follow her on X @_allysonchiu<\/a>. Michaela Towfighi can be reached at michaela.towfighi@globe.com<\/a>. Follow her on X @michaelatowfghi<\/a>.<\/p>\n