Aix-Marseille University last week introduced eight U.S.-based researchers who were in the final stage of joining the institution’s “Safe Place for Science" program, which aims to woo researchers who have experienced or fear funding cuts under the Trump administration. AMU offers the promise of a brighter future in the sun-drenched Mediterranean port city.
AMU said 298 researchers from prestigious universities including Stanford and Yale had applied, despite the university’s lack of name recognition outside France compared to some of its Parisian counterparts. Berton said the high volume of applicants spoke to the “urgency” of the situation across the Atlantic.
Well “science majors” can work for companies, they don’t have to become academics. Indeed arguably that’s partly the intention in cutting government grants and assuming that (eventually) industry will fund the stuff that’s directly useful to them.
That may or may not be the case, but for the purposes of giving guidance to our kids, it’s probably useful to distinguish between which “science majors” are most affected by cuts to government grants, which are most affected by lack of graduate job opportunities caused by AI etc.
I can’t imagine advising my kid to major in a non-science field rather than STEM because of the latter (a math major shows something to potential employers about your numeracy, and all entry level jobs may be affected by AI, not just STEM jobs). I am suggesting that my science kid completes a math major in addition to his astrophysics major, given the likelihood that there won’t be money for astrophysics research.
I don’t know if there’s a table of US government funding vs industry funding by science discipline. That would certainly be interesting.
As far as astronomy/astrophysics goes, the subject is overwhelmingly dominated by the US and Europe. But many leading missions are collaborations between NASA and the European Space Agency. Cuts in NASA support may mean that a significant number of European missions either won’t happen or will have to be reconfigured/delayed and if current missions are terminated then the data will no longer be available to analyze. I wouldn’t be surprised if European research opportunities shrink as a result as funding is redirected elsewhere.
It’s often difficult to get visit privileges if you’ve shown immigrant intent in the past,so that tallies, although one might argue that voluntary giving up citizenship is the clearest sign that you do not have any immigrant intent any more.
The part that’s concerning is “directly useful to” industry. Businesses are driven by profit. Only what will make money for stockholders will be appealing to industry. And the rest of it … pfffft, research is no longer being done. This sets us back decades and decades, and up and coming scientists who want to work on cutting edge research that is important but not necessarily profitable may well not find that here.
I don’t disagree. But in terms of advice to our kids, that may mean suggesting they could study bioengineering rather than climate science or fluid dynamics instead of quantum mechanics. I would really like to see some data on which disciplines receive most of their funding from government and which predominantly have their R&D within industry.
I don’t actually know very much about bioengineering as a career or major choice, but I was under the impression the outlook for bio related companies isn’t exactly rosy? For example, we live near this newly built bio science research complex that was planned when the future looked more promising for bio related startups, but once built, now doesn’t have tenants (note that this article was written before the bio research apocalypse): Berkeley Commons life science campus in Aquatic Park sits empty
I certainly hope bioengineering turns out to be an okay choice, though, because that’s what my D26 wants to do…
New report shows that business R&D funding dominates the U.S. R&D enterprise
May 21, 2024
The United States is the largest performer of research and experimental development (R&D), with $806 billion in gross domestic expenditures on R&D in 2021, followed by China, with $668 billion. While overall funding of R&D in the U.S. continues to rise rapidly, the share of basic research funded by the federal government has fallen in the previous decade. Business funding of U.S. R&D surpassed federal funding in the 1980s and now dominates the U.S. R&D enterprise. These are among the findings in Research and Development: U.S. Trends and International Comparisonspublished today by the National Science Board (NSB).
Prepared by the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics under NSB guidance, this report is part of the 2024 edition of the congressionally mandated Science and Engineering Indicators report on the state of the U.S. science and engineering enterprise.
The business sector is by far the largest performer of U.S. R&D, performing an estimated $693 billion in 2022, or 78% of U.S. R&D. Nearly 80% of business investment is in experimental development – the stage when the promise of near-term commercial benefit is real. Private sector R&D is also highly concentrated, clustering in a few key sectors such as information technology and pharmaceuticals.
Industry is well positioned to advance knowledge in targeted fields,” says Roger Beachy, NSB member and Washington University Professor Emeritus. “But only the federal government has invested across all fields, across the nation, at scale, and over long-time horizons to create new knowledge that helps us address current and future security, health, and economic challenges.”
Additional takeaways:
Other top R&D performers are Japan ($177 billion), Germany ($154 billion), and South Korea ($120 billion).
The United States is among the world’s most R&D-intensive economies, with R&D expenditures equaling 3.5% of its gross domestic product in 2021. Israel and South Korea had R&D intensities above 4%. Taiwan, Japan, and Germany were between 3% and 4%, and the United Kingdom and China above 2%.
In the U.S., higher education performed the second most R&D in 2022, after business.
Funding for life sciences research was the highest among S&E fields across agencies at $42 billion (44% of the total), primarily from the Department of Health and Human Services.
Science and Engineering Indicators is a congressionally mandated report on the state of the U.S. and international science and engineering enterprise. Indicators provides high-quality quantitative information on the enterprise in a series of reports and a data tool that provides state-level data.
About the NSB
The National Science Foundation Act of 1950 charged the NSB with two roles: to be the governing board of the NSF and an advisor to Congress and the President on policy matters related to STEM research and STEM education. Selected for their distinguished service and accomplishments in academia, government, and the private sector, the Board’s 24 presidentially appointed members are leaders in STEM research and education.
About the NCSES
NSF’s National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) is the nation’s leading provider of statistical data on the U.S. science and engineering enterprise. As a principal federal statistical agency, NCSES serves as a clearinghouse for the collection, interpretation, analysis, and dissemination of objective science and engineering data.
Media Contact: Nadine Lymn, National Science Board, [(703) 292-2490](tel:(703) 292-2490), nlymn@nsf.gov
business spends most of the R&D dollars, but most of that is for products close to profit stage, and much of that research is based on what federal dollars have initially funded?
In other words, federal funding is like a domino that will (in time) ripple through to business funding of R&D?
Yes, exactly. The dominos may fall 20, 30, 40 years from now.
It’s a symbiotic, well-oiled system that yielded incredible benefits.
And that system has been butchered.
I would definitely advise a child to focus more on climate science related fields, because they’re going to become and more necessary. Climate change doesn’t care if you believe in it; various levels of government and industry will need to reckon with it, from urban mobility to school yard design to labor laws… Or catastrophes will happen (And then some may have to change and some won’t but the current delays with cuts on top are likely to make anyone with skills to help adapt or mitigate the catastrophe in high demand).
Actually quantum mechanics Is one of the federally approved science areas for continued research support since it encompasses quantum computing/quantum communications. (AI is the other.)
Fluid dynamics, however…
The budget outlines steep cuts across much of the federal science apparatus, trimming $17.9 billion from the National Institutes of Health and scaling back Department of Energy research deemed part of, what the White House dubs in the document as the “Green New Scam.”
Still, the Office of Science will retain resources for “priority areas” such as artificial intelligence, high-performance computing, fusion, critical minerals — and quantum information science. This maintenance-level support appears to carve out quantum as a protected domain amid broader retrenchment.
Media advisory: On Tuesday, July 8, from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. in the Rayburn House Office Building Foyer (Rayburn Foyer) the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology – Democrats will host an event titled, The Things We’ll Never Know: A Science Fair of Canceled Grants. Over twenty scientists from research institutions across the nation whose grants have been canceled by the Trump administration will be in attendance to present posters to share their story and discuss their now-canceled research grants. This event is open to the public and to the press. Please RSVP to attend (details below).
The research that will be represented at this event ranges from neuroscience, to astrophysics, to STEM education. The awarding agencies of the now-canceled grants include the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Homeland Security, National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, USAID, and the Department of Defense.
Toward the beginning of the event, speakers will deliver remarks. A press Q&A will begin immediately following speaker remarks. Members of the media who wish to participate in the press availability should plan to arrive at the beginning of the event.
Employment of environmental scientists and specialists is projected to grow 7 percent from 2023 to 2033, faster than the average for all occupations.
About 8,500 openings for environmental scientists and specialists are projected each year, on average, over the decade. Many of those openings are expected to result from the need to replace workers who transfer to different occupations or exit the labor force, such as to retire.”
“ Environmental scientists and specialists held about 84,600 jobs in 2023. The largest employers of environmental scientists and specialists were as follows:
State government, excluding education and hospitals
28%
Management, scientific, and technical consulting services
19
Local government, excluding education and hospitals
In particular, agriculture and insurance companies, and anything involving risk assessment, adaptation, and mitigation, whether for towns or companies.
The basic public research is likely to be shrunk for the next couple years but the applied fields will, unfortunately, grow.
Climate related scientists are already necessary and a big deal at insurance companies.
(They may depend on government data so it may lead to chaos and wrong estimates but they won’t stop what is now a significant part of their industry.)
