Michael Kratsios: Trump's Science Agenda, Anti-Science Claims, Fauci's Damage, DEI & China

Michael Kratsios defends the Trump administration against accusations of being anti-science, emphasizing that the administration wants to double U.S. scientific output and has released a report called 'Science, A New Golden Age' outlining this vision. He argues that science has become politicized over the past 15-20 years, reaching a peak during COVID when disagreement with certain authorities was labeled as anti-science. Kratsios contends that true science depends on questioning and inquiry, and that the current scientific community has moved away from the scientific method toward dogma.

Regarding science funding, Kratsios explains that the U.S. government spends $200 billion annually on science and technology but questions whether this spending is optimally allocated. He highlights that NIH funding has more than tripled since 1998 (from $14 billion to $47 billion) but breakthrough treatments have not increased proportionally, citing Eroom's Law showing efficiency declining 80-fold since 1950. The administration argues that simply increasing budgets without examining allocation methods is ineffective.

Kratsios cites the National Science Foundation as an example, noting that roughly 25% of grants during the Biden administration went to DEI-related initiatives—approximately $2 billion per year or $8 billion over four years. He characterizes this as politicization rather than gold-standard science. Regarding climate change, he states the administration acknowledges that humans have contributed to CO2 through fossil fuel burning but disputes the characterization of a 'climate emergency,' citing the removal of the RCP 8.5 scenario from climate predictions as evidence that extreme projections were unfounded.

On the broader question of scientific stagnation, Kratsios points to the declining speed of commercial flight (Concorde no longer exists) as evidence that innovation has slowed. He proposes implementing 'meta science' units at NSF and NIH to experiment with different funding models, including 'golden tickets' that allow individual peer reviewers to fund grants without committee consensus, and variable grant durations beyond the standard 18 months to better match different research needs.

Kratsios discusses four channels for science funding: government agencies, universities, private industry, and independent research organizations like Howard Hughes Medical Institute and Max Planck. He argues that the post-WWII model established by Vannevar Bush—where government primarily funded basic research at universities—is outdated, as the ratio of public to private R&D spending has inverted from 70% government/30% private to 30% government/70% private. The administration advocates for government funding of basic, pre-competitive research where private markets lack incentive.

The conversation addresses competition with China, which has increased R&D spending from $33 billion in 2000 to $670 billion by 2021, while the U.S. increased from roughly $220 billion to $660 billion. China now publishes more scientific papers than the U.S. in nearly every domain except some life sciences. Kratsios argues that China's centralized scientific approach, while achieving scale, has failed to produce breakthrough innovations (citing their inability to develop EUV lithography despite decades of effort and enormous resources). He emphasizes that America's competitive advantage lies in its decentralized, market-driven innovation ecosystem that attracts global talent.

Kratsios identifies a critical pipeline problem: seven out of ten STEM PhD recipients in the U.S. are foreign-born, compared to 30% foreign-born 30 years ago in computer science. He notes that programs encouraging gifted American students to pursue STEM were discontinued and advocates for their restoration. He also proposes more flexible immigration policies to retain foreign PhD graduates who currently return to China or other countries.

Regarding the perception that scientists were once celebrities and 'rock stars,' Kratsios acknowledges COVID and figures like Dr. Fauci damaged public trust in science. He argues that Fauci 'did more disservice to science than anyone in modern history' due to inconsistent guidance (mask mandates for students vs. approval for collective protests, preventing hospital visits) that undermined scientific credibility. He positions the administration's emphasis on scientific inquiry and questioning as necessary healing.

The administration's major initiatives include: the Genesis Mission to double U.S. scientific output through AI application; space exploration targets (return to moon by 2028, moon base by 2030, nuclear reactor in space by 2028); a quantum computing initiative targeting a scientifically-relevant quantum computer by 2028; and fusion energy goals by 2035. Kratsios emphasizes that AI for science focuses on applying AI to existing basic research rather than competing with private sector AI development.

Finally, Kratsios addresses Congressional dynamics, noting that while many Hill members prioritize funding for their districts and states, he believes the Golden Age recommendations are sufficiently nonpartisan and benefit diverse regions that they can gain bipartisan support. He expresses optimism that these institutional changes will prove effective and resistant to political reversal, though he acknowledges the political challenges of implementing them.