BREAKING: A new study published in Science reveals that funding for scientific research in the United States has historically been higher under Republican leadership than under Democrats, challenging long-standing perceptions about party support for science. This urgent finding comes as debates heat up over proposed cuts to federal science budgets, particularly from the administration of President Donald Trump.
The study, which examines funding trends from 1980 to 2000, shows that under Republican control—either in the White House or the House of Representatives—spending for scientific agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) increased significantly. Specifically, funding recipients received an average of $150 million more when Republicans controlled the House and $100 million more when a Republican occupied the presidency.
This data arrives as Trump’s administration proposed deep cuts to crucial science funding earlier this year, including a staggering $6 billion from NASA and $350 million from the CDC. These proposals have ignited fierce backlash from Democrats and scientists alike, who argue that such reductions could undermine public health and environmental research.
According to the authors of the study, Dashun Wang and Alexander Furnas, this trend contradicts the conventional wisdom that the Republican Party is less supportive of science. “We’re taking a data-driven approach,” Wang stated, emphasizing the importance of examining granular funding data. The study analyzed spending across 171 funding recipients and 27 agencies, revealing the complexities behind federal allocations.
Despite these findings, the overall federal budget for Fiscal Year 2024 is projected at an enormous $6.75 trillion, with discretionary spending, which includes science funding, accounting for only 26% of the total. This means that even increased funding for science remains a small fraction of overall government expenditure.
The political maneuvering behind science funding is intricate. After the president proposes a budget, Congress engages in a multi-step process that can lead to contentious negotiations. Furnas points out, “The president doesn’t have a ton of power here,” as rejecting an appropriations bill risks a government shutdown.
The study highlights that while Republicans historically allocated more funds to scientific research, they have also pushed for cuts in certain areas, such as the NSF’s political science research budget. Notably, the Dickey Amendment restricts federal funding for studying gun violence as a public health issue, illustrating the ongoing partisan battles over science funding.
The implications of these findings are significant. With Congress currently grappling with the proposed cuts, some lawmakers are pushing back. In a recent Senate proposal, Republicans suggested increasing NIH funding by $400 million, contradicting Trump’s earlier budget cuts. “At least so far, this looks like a place where Republicans in Congress are pushing back,” Furnas noted.
As tensions rise over federal science funding, the study’s authors caution against oversimplifying the relationship between political parties and science. “Democrats may have more competing priorities,” Furnas explained, suggesting that the apparent Republican advantage in science funding may not reflect a straightforward party allegiance to scientific advancement.
This urgent research underscores the need for ongoing dialogue about the role of federal funding in scientific progress, especially as Congress prepares for budget negotiations that could profoundly affect the future of research in the U.S. As the political landscape evolves, how science funding will be prioritized remains uncertain.
Stay tuned for the latest updates on this developing story and the ongoing impact of funding decisions on American science.
