In today’s rapidly evolving world, the competition in scientific research and development is becoming increasingly intense. Conor raises an important point regarding the value of science funding when equated with military might and national superiority. The significant proposed $1.5 trillion military budget from the Pentagon raises questions: Should our investment in science purely focus on outpacing nations like China and enhancing GDP? What about the broader impacts on society’s welfare?
Additionally, while many actions of the Trump administration can be viewed through the lens of corruption or a misplaced quest for dominance, one must ponder the rationale behind undermining scientific research. Just recently, Trump dismissed all 24 members of the U.S. National Science Foundation’s governing body, which guides the NSF’s policies, makes significant funding decisions, and offers congressional advice on science and engineering policy.
By Caroline Wagner, Professor of Public Affairs at The Ohio State University. Originally published at The Conversation.
China has recently reached a significant milestone in science, with its investment in research and development now matching and, when adjusted for purchasing power, even surpassing the United States. This change is documented in a March 2026 report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, confirming that both countries have exceeded the US$1 trillion milestone in research spending.
For the past 80 years, the United States has boasted the most productive scientific and technological enterprise in history. Groundbreaking advancements from American laboratories include the internet, the mRNA vaccine, transistors and their descendants, and the Global Positioning System, among many others.
The U.S. maintained its prominent position in science and technology due to consistent public investment in research universities and federal laboratories, alongside a culture supporting open inquiry. These investments have translated scientific breakthroughs into economic growth, contributing to over 20% of U.S. productivity growth since World War II.
In stark contrast, China’s initial investment in research and development was minimal. In 1980, it was reported that China ranked among the lowest research spenders globally.
As a policy analyst and public affairs researcher, I examine international collaboration in science and technology and its impact on both public and foreign policy. I have monitored China’s ascendancy in major databases for over a decade.
The recent reports that indicate China is now outspending the U.S. in scientific and technological research represent a crucial turning point. Historically, dominance in one sector—such as technology and military—often influences others, putting U.S. supremacy at risk.
China’s Systematic and Unrelenting Rise
China’s achievement in R&D spending reflects a series of rapid advancements.
In 2019, China outpaced the U.S. in its share of the top 1% most cited papers—often regarded as the pinnacle of research. By 2022, it captured the top position globally for the most-cited papers overall.
In 2024, China overtook the U.S. in total scientific publications for the first time since the U.S. surpassed the UK in 1948. Research indicates that China outperformed the U.S. in scientific output even earlier. That same year, Chinese institutions also ranked first in the Nature Index, which tracks contributions to the most selective scientific journals, establishing a 17% advantage over the U.S. in platforms traditionally viewed as benchmarks of excellence.
In 2024, China submitted approximately 1.8 million patent applications, a stark contrast to the U.S.’s 603,191 applications.
Given these milestones, one might argue that China is swiftly leading the global science and technology landscape. These findings represent not merely isolated data points but denote a structural shift in where the world’s scientific forefront is being established.
More Science Is Good – the Problem Lies Elsewhere
China’s progress is, in many ways, a positive development. An increase in knowledge, produced by more researchers across various institutions, enhances the global repository of discovery, benefiting everyone.
The concern does not lie with China’s development but rather with the U.S. underfunding its own scientific initiatives.
First, the U.S. is withdrawing from fundamental, open science. Federal R&D spending peaked around 2010 at about $160 billion, subsequently declining over 15% in the following five years. Overall federal investment in research and development has been in gradual decline—from 1.86% of gross domestic product in 1964 to roughly 0.66% by 2021.
The federal government is no longer the largest R&D investor: In 2022, it financed about 40% of basic research, while the business sector accounted for roughly 78% of U.S. R&D. While this shift is not inherently problematic, industry has concurrently retreated from publicly sharing scientific findings over the last forty years, transitioning from research to development. This has resulted in a dwindling pool of openly accessible scientific knowledge as public investment simultaneously decreases.
During the second Trump administration, government science agencies have been slow to approve new research proposals. Potential budget reductions by the White House could significantly slashes funding for government spending.
Moreover, there is a growing restriction on scientific collaboration: limiting access to U.S. institutions, scrutinizing international partnerships, and intensifying barriers to foreign-born researchers. While these policies are established for security, they undermine the openness that has historically contributed to the productivity and appeal of American science for global talent.
I refer to this as the stockyard paradox, where attempts to secure research assets may inadvertently weaken the very systems these measures seek to protect.
Disinvestment Cuts Deeper Than It Appears
The real danger for the U.S. economy lies in the erosion of its capacity to utilize cutting-edge science, regardless of origin, due to disinvestment and selective engagement in research.
To effectively leverage and apply advanced knowledge, whether sourced from Boston or Beijing, requires robust research institutions, skilled workforces, and active global collaboration. This is not a passive endeavor; one cannot benefit from Chinese scientific advancements if the necessary institutional and human resources have been dismantled.
A nation that undermines its research infrastructure not only lags behind but also risks losing its potential to capitalize on scientific advancements, even in technologies it can access.
Talent exacerbates the issue further. The U.S. established its scientific leadership partly by being the primary destination for ambitious researchers worldwide. The country is recognized for its Nobel Prize recipients, with 40% of awards in chemistry, medicine, and physics since 2000 going to immigrants. However, this flow of foreign talent is not guaranteed; it depends on opportunity, funding, and openness.
Researchers who might have traditionally chosen American institutions are finding more inviting prospects in Europe, China, and other regions.
A Decision Point, Not a Trend Line
The milestone reached by China in research funding comes at a critical juncture for the U.S. regarding its intent to sustain scientific leadership.
Scientific infrastructure doesn’t wane gradually and recover easily. The journey to becoming a doctoral scientist spans over ten years; tacit lab knowledge is embedded in functioning research teams, not merely written documents. Once skilled young researchers exit the system or international talent is diverted to other countries, it becomes exceedingly challenging to rebuild that capacity. Early signs of concern are already apparent within the U.S. system: thousands of NIH grants have been terminated, there is a notable decline in international applications, and an exodus of early-career scientists is underway.
What is truly at stake transcends rankings; it is about maintaining the essential institutional capacity—the universities, federal laboratories, graduate programs, and the culture of open inquiry—that initially enabled those successful returns on scientific investment.
China’s ascent does not create this critical decision point, although it emphasizes its urgency. The U.S. must confront whether it still aspires to lead in science. A report from the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a non-profit think tank, predicts that a 20% reduction in federal research and development spending starting in fiscal year 2026 could result in a contraction of nearly $1 trillion for the U.S. economy over the next decade, alongside an approximate $250 billion decrease in tax revenues. Others highlight that the scientific enterprise has accounted for at least half of U.S. economic growth.
This potential loss is significant and cannot be overlooked.
