In a groundbreaking speech, National Academy of Sciences president Marcia McNutt warned that the U.S. is losing its position as a global leader in science, with China quickly catching up. This decline, she said, threatens not only the economy but also national security. McNutt highlighted how the U.S. once dominated the world in science by investing heavily in research and innovation but has since slipped due to reduced funding and lack of coordination. She called for urgent action, including improving STEM education and developing a national research strategy, to prevent further decline and reclaim America’s scientific leadership.
This speech, which was the first of its kind, was similar to the State of the Union address given by the U.S. president. McNutt’s talk highlighted the strengths and weaknesses of American science and stressed the urgent need for a new approach to research and development (R&D).
Carrie Wolinetz, a science policy expert, agreed with McNutt’s message, saying it’s crucial to keep raising awareness about this issue. However, she pointed out that while people in policy circles have been talking about it for a while, the message hasn’t reached the government or the public.
McNutt shared some troubling statistics: the U.S. is producing fewer highly-cited scientific papers, and the rate of new drugs and technologies being developed has stalled. While the U.S. still spends the most on R&D, China is quickly catching up. China now files more patents than the U.S. and hosts more clinical trials.
McNutt warned that the U.S. is losing its lead in science, which could weaken its military and its ability to influence other countries. She said that after World War II, the U.S. became a global leader in science by heavily investing in both basic and applied research and by attracting talent from around the world. But since the 1980s, federal investment has decreased, making the scientific landscape more complicated. Private companies and philanthropies began to play a bigger role in funding research, which changed the focus of scientific studies and limited the sharing of knowledge. This shift has sometimes led to public distrust in science, especially in areas like genetically modified organisms and artificial intelligence.
McNutt also pointed out that the quality of math and science education in the U.S. has declined since the 1980s, resulting in fewer Americans entering the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) workforce.
To fix these problems, McNutt suggested several solutions. She didn’t call for more government spending but emphasized the need for public support and involvement in science. She also stressed the importance of improving STEM education in schools. Currently, American students rank in the middle globally for science and below average in math. Foreign-born individuals make up a significant portion of the U.S. STEM workforce, but as other countries improve, the U.S. will face tougher competition for talent.
McNutt recommended that schools should foster students’ natural curiosity for science and use technology like AI to assist with teaching. She also suggested that the U.S. could benefit from a more coordinated approach to research, similar to the strategic plans used by the European Union and China.
Some experts, like E. Albert Reece from the National Academy of Medicine, agree with McNutt and believe it’s important to show that current funding is being used effectively before asking for more money. Others, like Mary Woolley, president of Research!America, think that even more radical ideas are needed to rejuvenate American science.
McNutt’s call for a strategic research plan and better public education echoes previous reports that have warned about the state of K-12 STEM education. Although improving the education system is a big challenge, there is hope that it can be done again.
The CHIPS and Sciences Act, passed by Congress in 2022, aligns with many of McNutt’s recommendations. It aims to revive semiconductor production and invest $170 billion in research and STEM education. However, budget issues have limited the support that scientific agencies have received so far. The outcome of the upcoming presidential election could also impact the future of federal scientific programs, with the Biden administration having supported modest budget increases for scientific agencies.
