A century ago, America was not yet a global leader in basic science, despite groundbreaking innovations by those like Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell and the Wright Brothers. At the time, Europe—particularly Germany—dominated fundamental scientific advancements. However, the rise of Nazism in the 1930s, with its toxic ideology of racial and ethnic ‘purity’, endangered many of Germany’s leading scientists. This persecution forced numerous scholars to flee to the US, which welcomed them with open arms.
“A shining city upon a hill”—the line popularised by Ronald Reagan in his 1989 farewell address to encapsulate American exceptionalism—ultimately drew inspiration from the Bible, where Jesus tells his followers, “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden.”
But alongside their religiosity, the US’s founding fathers—not all of them devout Christians—were deeply shaped by Enlightenment ideals such as freedom of thought, expression and religious pluralism. This fusion of values forged a nation whose constitution and institutions created a fertile ground for an unfettered academic culture. Such an environment laid the foundation for a robust basic science research.
The rise of American science was accelerated by immigrants fleeing authoritarian regimes in the 1930s and those who arrived later seeking opportunity. These individuals, including talent from India and China, found in 1960s’ American academia a rare combination of intellectual freedom and institutional generosity.
It was also facilitated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed discrimination based on race, colour, religion or national origin. The strategic openness to global talent proved transformative.
The accomplishments in basic science led to major breakthroughs—from understanding the atom and the genome to devising the internet and global positioning systems to life-saving therapeutics. The US became a model for others. The lifeline of technology has always been basic science–to understand the natural world in contrast with applied science.
The end of Reagan’s rule in 1989 and lapping up of American exceptionalism coincided with the dissolution of the Soviet Union. This author, who had just joined a university in the US as a postdoctoral researcher, remembers watching on television the unfurling of the flag marking the end of the USSR. It was hailed as a victory of neoliberalism and democracy. But a lot has changed in the US between Reagan and Donald Trump.
As a retrogression from Enlightenment principles, some Americans now even maintain that the country is a “Christian nation built by Christians, for Christians”—somewhat reminiscent of political slogans raised in Germany in the 1930s. The cracks in the neoliberal democratic system have been building up over the last several years. This must have made Francis Fukuyama, who jubilantly wrote The End of History in 1989, sound more cynical about the prospects of liberal democracy in his more recent writings.
Much of the ire of current ruling elites has fallen on science and academia. The future of their research careers is threatened with massive cuts in funding, loss of jobs and revocation of visas. The new administration announced soon after settling in freezes on federal grants for programmes embracing diversity, equity and inclusion. It made drastic cuts to funds for projects paid by the National Institutes of Health, impacting the wherewithal of many leading universities that host such programmes.
It is feared this will encourage a reverse brain drain from the US to Europe and other countries. In a recent poll among US researchers by Nature, more than 1,200 out of 1,600 said they would like to leave the country—that is about 75 percent of the total. Of the 700 respondents among postgraduate students, 500 wanted to leave. The Nature editorial noted the risks as “the country seeks to devalue scientific evidence in policy making and attack the structures supporting the US knowledge ecosystem, including universities, libraries and museums”.
US federal agencies fund 60 percent of the country’s basic science research. NIH, whose budget is estimated to be $48 billion, is the largest funder of biomedical research in the world, and the National Science Foundation spends about $9 billion on fundamental science and engineering. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is facing significant downsizing, affecting its climate science research.
A recent statement by elected members of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine came out strongly against the funding cuts: “The quest for truth—the mission of science—requires that scientists freely explore new questions and report their findings honestly, independent of special interests. Trump is engaging in censorship, destroying this independence.”
They admit “a climate of fear has descended on the research community”. Vocal protests by scientists happen, but most of them maintain silence for the fear of antagonising the powerful. Some decisions have been questioned in courts by various academic associations.
What is happening to academic research in the US will also impact its global collaborations. One key question is whether the US will remain a preferred destination for foreign researchers to study and work. If this interest is not sustained, America’s loss will be others’ gain.
CP Rajendran | Adjunct professor, National Institute of Advanced Studies; author of The Rumbling Earth: The Story of Indian Earthquakes
(Views are personal)
(cprajendran@gmail.com)