White House science report urges regulatory reforms, AI-led research, funding overhaul to boost US innovation
Washington, DC, July 22
Michael Kratsios, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, has released a report calling for sweeping reforms to the US scientific ecosystem, including reducing regulatory barriers, overhauling research funding, strengthening industry partnerships, and accelerating the use of artificial intelligence in scientific research.
The report, titled Science: A New Golden Age, was submitted to US President Donald Trump and outlines recommendations for the federal government, academia, industry, and philanthropy to strengthen America's scientific and technological leadership.
Highlighting the need to reform research funding, the report said the current system is based on outdated models and discourages high-risk, high-impact research.
"To reverse stagnation and restore breakthrough momentum, the Federal Government must free American scientists to do their best work," the report stated. "Federal funding in academia remains anchored to mid-century assumptions, channelled through traditional disciplines and overly focused on short, project-based grants."
It further said, "We must strip away unnecessary burdens, realign funding toward excellence and risk-taking, and embed continuous, evidence-based improvement across an approximately USD 200 billion annual R&D portfolio."
The report also recommended reducing administrative requirements for researchers, expanding long-term grants, and supporting early-career scientists.
"Requirements on federal grants have ballooned over the past decades. Some grants now take nearly two years from submission to award, almost as long as it took to design and produce the first Boeing 747," it said, adding, "Compress review cycles, eliminate duplicative reporting, and rein in indirect cost recovery that supports administrative bloat, redirecting that money to real scientific infrastructure."
Calling for a more innovation-friendly regulatory environment, the report said excessive regulation has slowed technological progress.
"American regulators have grown skilled at weighing the risks of action, but blind to the costs of inaction," it stated. "Developing good rules require real-world evidence, and building that evidence base only comes from letting innovators prototype and experiment."
The report also called for expanding collaboration between universities, industry, and government research institutions, noting that "The university is no longer the only home of America's most innovative scientific research."
On workforce development, it recommended integrating practical technical training into STEM education.
"Technology is encoded not just in papers and patents, but in the tacit knowledge passed from mentor to mentee," the report said. "Require universities and community colleges to embed practical technical training and externships into STEM curricula."
On artificial intelligence, the report proposed expanding the Genesis Mission as the country's flagship AI initiative for science, alongside investments in autonomous laboratories and AI-driven research institutions.
"America stands at the cusp of a revolution in science, in which AI will accelerate discovery, multiply human cognitive capabilities, and unlock solutions to some of our greatest challenges," the report said. "But 'AI for science' will still find itself subject to the frictions and inefficiencies of human institutions."
— ANI
Reader Comments
As someone working in biotech, that line about "regulators skilled at weighing risks of action but blind to costs of inaction" hits hard. Here in India, we have similar issues - our CDSCO drug approval processes are notoriously slow. We need to learn from this US approach while maintaining safety standards. Pragmatic regulation is the need of the hour. 🧬
The focus on AI-led discovery is timely. But this "Golden Age" framing feels overly optimistic when American R&D as percentage of GDP has been declining relative to China. The report should also address how to attract international talent - current visa policies are driving Indian and Chinese PhDs to consider alternatives. 🎯
That comparison of grant cycles vs Boeing 747 design is brilliant! Our own DST-SERB projects take equally long. But I worry about "reining in indirect cost recovery" - that could hurt university infrastructure in the name of efficiency. We need balance, not slash-and-burn reforms. Still, the emphasis on high-risk research is welcome. 🇮🇳
As an American researcher, I'm cautiously optimistic. But the report mentions "evidence-based improvement" without detailing what metrics they'll use. Will it just become a way to defund basic science in favor of corporate partnerships? The line about "industry partnerships" worries me - we saw how Pharma funding skewed research. 🤔
The "tacit knowledge from mentor to mentee" part resonates deeply. In Indian labs, our best learning happens through that guru-shishya parampara. But our STEM education is too theory
We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.