The Path Ahead for American Science

A drawing of the night sky from when I was five years old. This page was part of a "book" I wrote (and tried to sell on the side of the road) about the solar system.

        This morning, I submitted my first-ever “first author” paper to The Astronomical Journal. Our paper was the culmination of almost two years’ work, including over a dozen 100-hour weeks throughout the last two summers. With mentorship and critique from dozens of collaborators across the US, Europe, China, Taiwan and Australia, I was able to live out the ultimate dream of my life: adding a drop of my own to our knowledge of the cosmos. At the same time, my research was made possible through financial support – from Harvard and the federal government – which has supported my living and research expenses.

This afternoon I discovered that Harvard will cut science graduate admissions by 75% over the next two years, which includes the year I will apply to its graduate programs. As Harvard, the world’s wealthiest university and one of my top picks for graduate school, decided to almost dismantle its entire graduate program for multiple years, I could not help but ask the question: If Harvard cannot sustain its graduate programs, how will other universities be able to?

The recent attacks on federally funded science – the undisputed pinnacle of American public achievement – are unprecedented in American history. We initially expected that the current administration would obsessively target research involving disparities and equity, LGBTQ+ medical and social issues, and climate change. What we did not expect was the complete pillaging of politically agnostic, basic scientific research, from materials science to machine learning. What we did not expect was hastily written, poorly intentioned budget proposals suggesting 47% cuts to NASA science funding, 40% cuts to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and 57% cuts to the National Science Foundation. What we did not expect was graduate programs outright pausing admissions for multiple years, virtually decapitating an entire generation of American-born researchers. Why has everything gone so wrong?

Most Americans – including those in the White House who support the proposed budget cuts – understand that basic federally-funded scientific research has, by itself, ushered in nearly all of the innovations central to our daily lives. They also understand that crippling the American research ecosystem will crush our economy, disarm us in our Cold War with China, and actively harm Americans’ day-to-day lives. And yet the administration, with broad support from a plurality of the American public, has actively ripped science from our hands. 

For many people, including myself, these statements seem contradictory. If we are in a vacuum, gravity should continue to accelerate us without air resistance; that is, an administration that knows the benefits of continuously funded scientific research would not apply resistance to the enterprise. However, just as the vacuum neglects air resistance, our basic analysis has neglected the broader aims of the Trump administration, which reach well beyond rooting out ‘progressive ideology.’

Over the last couple decades, trust in science, scientists and scientific institutions has collapsed. Although still much higher than approval ratings of Congress or the current administration, 2023 American support of scientific research has declined 16 points from 2019 highs, and the percentage of people who have a great deal of confidence in scientists is only two thirds what it was four years ago. The polls illustrate a sharp decline in support for science – even if it continues to produce remarkable progress. The current administration, by pillaging American federally funded research, is simply responding to that lost confidence.

The declining trust in science has a vividly clear cause – and that cause is not inconsistent with declining trust in the rest of American institutions: there is a rigid disconnect between scientists and the rest of American society. While almost 90% of Americans believe that scientists are intelligent, almost half believe that “research scientists feel superior to others” and over half believe that they are poor communicators. 

That is to say, there is a divide between scientists and the public, and it is precisely because scientists are not actively engaging the public. It is precisely because we are focusing only on our research instead of sharing it to excite the public. It is precisely because we do not talk with (rather than to) the public about their joy for science. It is precisely because, rather than invite the amateurs and the people with general interest in our subjects, we close our doors to them. From the professional disdain towards amateur astronomers, to the lack of an outreach requirement at most major astrophysics graduate programs, I have seen firsthand our inability to communicate to (but most importantly with) the public. And I have seen, from my 70% Trump-voting hometown to the pinnacle halls of our democracy, how our lack of communication has led to intellectual rot and damaged our relationship with the people. 

We must bridge the divide. Now that we cannot rely on NASA or federally-funded programs to maintain critical outreach infrastructure for us, we must forge relationships of our own. For astronomers, we must extensively increase our involvement with amateur groups – who ultimately bridge the gap between us and the rest of society. We must also establish direct outreach programs of our own that target not just already science-interested groups, but rural Americans, Americans without college degrees, middle class conservatives, and any other group that has historically been underrepresented in science outreach. We must actively engage the public in science, not just by speaking to them as experts, but by learning from their curiosity. We must open the coffers of curiosity to all Americans, not just to our small subgroup.

A couple weeks ago, I had the opportunity to discuss science with the policy liaison at the Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian. He recounted a discussion he had with Vice President J.D. Vance, whom he tried to persuade to make changes to the proposed NASA cut. J.D. Vance quickly responded that “you first must justify to the average American why you need to spend their money.” Even though I strongly disagree with many of J.D. Vance’s policy positions, he is exactly right: Before we can reliably regain the American public’s hard-earned tax dollars, we must first regain their trust. And, to regain their trust, we must make an unprecedented effort to connect the public with our work.