
Science Isn't about Domination. It's about Democracy
Nestled in the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025, the slash-and-burn playbook for the federal government that the Trump administration is following while saying it isn't, is a call for American ' science dominance.'
There is no such thing. And what the project means by the term—turning the Department of Energy into a handmaiden of the coal, oil and natural gas industry—betrays not only the taxpayer but science itself.
Science isn't a winner-take-all, zero-sum game of flag football. Whether during the cold war or the era of Sir Francis Bacon's New Atlantis, the bedrock of science has been international cooperation. People pursue scientific knowledge not solely for the sake of lording our spoils over everyone else. The monetary value of research is not the only reason why humans engage in asking why of the world around us.
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
Science breeds diplomacy. It counters division. It tells us what is, not what we want things to be. Science enables democracy. The way the Trump administration is approaching it, by cutting funds for projects that run afoul of conservative values, such as ones related to diversity, or calling for research into claims that have already been debunked, which is the case for the idea that vaccines are linked to autism, defies all this. If that approach succeeds, it will make us a poorer nation in every sense of the word.
By halting federal funds to scientific research, canceling university grants and threatening to deport immigrant scientists, the Trump administration is restricting the flow of ideas. By trying to legitimize debunked scientific ideas and allocating taxpayer dollars to research into those debunked ideas, the administration sows discord and undermines the role of public health in preventing sickness and disease. By canceling global aid for public health projects, the administration is shunning the U.S. role in global health. And in their push for energy dominance, Trump and his allies are kicking years of negotiation over climate change to the curb.
By becoming insular, by cutting out the world, we stand to lose our best and brightest minds in science and the exchange of ideas that leads to innovation. Our country is a scientific and economic powerhouse precisely because we have been so open and collaborative for so long. China's academic scientific output, as measured by publications in Nature journals, has surpassed that of the U.S. How can cutting federal science funding help the administration's intellectual war with China? How can the U.S. further its national interests if we shut out ideas and people? How does democracy survive if we stop research and the flow of information?
In setting the stage for the role of the U.S. government in science, Vannevar Bush told President Harry Truman in 1945 that 'scientific progress is one essential key to our security as a nation, to our better health, to more jobs, to a higher standard of living, and to our cultural progress.' He noted the federal government's role in supporting agricultural research and said, 'The time has come when such support should be extended to other fields.'
From the 1950s on, the U.S. government has been the largest funder of scientific research in the nation, not to mention the world. Those dollars have helped develop countless drugs, and a wide assortment of military and domestic machinery, and they have paid the salaries of millions of researchers. Those dollars have saved people and helped industrialize nations the world over.
American scientific research has also influenced policymaking. This is where the tie to democracy matters most: evidence-based policymaking allows the largest number of people in the country to be healthy, be safe and have a voice. This is what cutbacks to science threaten. This is how Trump administration–sponsored research into questions that have basically been answered, because officials don't like the answer, threatens the ability of all Americans to thrive.
When Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., says the nation will know by the end of the summer what environmental factors cause autism and calls for the private medical records of autistic people as part of this push, this is a fishing expedition. Kennedy doesn't like the answers that we already have— vaccines do not cause autism, and genetics influences the development of autism—so he wastes taxpayer money.
Recently, a group of scientists from all over the world earned Breakthrough Prize for the work they did at CERN, a multinational facility that tests fundamental ideas in physics. With cuts to science funding, what will happen to projects like this, plans to improve our Antarctic field stations, and efforts like the evidence-driven Paris climate agreement? Such ideas underpin our grasp of the natural world and probe the technologies the U.S. needs. Scuttling science and shutting doors on the world will leave us in the dark. Domination will doom us to failure.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


USA Today
25 minutes ago
- USA Today
US appeals court won't reconsider Trump's $5 million loss to E. Jean Carroll
US appeals court won't reconsider Trump's $5 million loss to E. Jean Carroll A divided 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has left intact its Dec. 30 decision upholding a $5 million verdict against Donald Trump Show Caption Hide Caption Judges deliberating on Trump's E. Jean Carroll appeal Judges are deliberating on whether the jury that awarded E. Jean Carroll $5 million should have been allowed to hear other allegations. NEW YORK, June 13 (Reuters) - Donald Trump failed to persuade a federal appeals court to reconsider the $5 million verdict won by E. Jean Carroll after a jury found that the U.S. president sexually abused and defamed the former magazine columnist. A divided 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan on June 13 left intact its Dec. 30, 2024, decision upholding the jury award. Carroll, now 81, accused Trump of attacking her around 1996 in a Bergdorf Goodman department store dressing room in Manhattan, and defaming her in an October 2022 Truth Social post by denying her claim as a hoax. More: Trump loses appeal of sexual abuse and defamation judgment in E. Jean Carroll case Jurors decided in May 2023 that Trump had sexually assaulted Carroll, and defamed her by lying. They did not find that Trump raped Carroll, as she had claimed. More: Did Donald Trump rape E. Jean Carroll? Here's what a jury and judge said. In seeking reconsideration, Trump maintained that the trial judge erred in letting jurors review the 2005 "Access Hollywood" video of him bragging about his sexual prowess, and a "pile-on" of inflammatory evidence that he mistreated two other women. One, businesswoman Jessica Leeds, said Trump groped her on a plane in the late 1970s. The other, former People magazine writer Natasha Stoynoff, said Trump forcibly kissed her at his Mar-a-Lago estate in 2005. Trump has denied their claims. More: Jury finds Donald Trump liable in civil sex abuse case of E. Jean Carroll Trump, who turns 79 on June 14, is separately appealing an $83.3 million jury verdict in January 2024 for defaming Carroll and damaging her reputation in June 2019, when he first denied her claim about the Bergdorf encounter. The president is arguing in that appeal that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision last July providing him substantial criminal immunity shields him from liability in Carroll's civil case. In his 2019 and 2022 denials of Carroll's accusations, Trump said she was "not my type" and had made up the rape claim to promote her memoir.
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Defense stocks trade higher after Israel airstrikes in Iran raise Middle East tensions
Defense stocks climbed early Friday after Israel launched a series of airstrikes on Iran, raising tensions in the Middle East and heightening fears of a broader regional conflict. Lockheed Martin (LMT) stock gained as much as 3% early Friday, while shares of Northrop Grumman (NOC) and RTX (RTX) rose closer to 2%. The three companies supply weapons to Israel through their contracts with the US government. US stocks were lower at the open, with the S&P 500 and Nasdaq off about 0.7% while the Dow fell 1.1%. Overnight futures fell nearly 2% in immediate reaction to Israel's airstrikes, which were first reported near 8:00 p.m. ET on Thursday. Oil prices were the biggest mover on Friday, rising as much as 8%. Defense stocks have been on the rise over the past year, with Friday's gains bringing RTX stock's gain to north of 35% over the past year, while Northrop Grumman is up 19.5%. Lockheed Martin has risen a more modest 3.9% over that time frame. Palantir (PLTR), a defense contractor that has benefited both from the bid in defense names and its role in the AI boom, traded flat Friday morning. Its stock has soared more than 480% over the last year and is the best performer in the S&P 500 year-to-date. RTX has outperformed Wall Street's expectations since the fourth quarter of 2022. Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman have beat analysts' projections in seven and six of those nine quarters, respectively. The Trump administration has promised a $1 trillion budget for US defense but its fiscal 2026 budget looks set to fall short of that goal. On Thursday night, Israel launched what it called a "preemptive strike" against Iran targeting its nuclear facilities. The attacks continued into Friday, killing 78 people in Tehran including Iran's top military leadership. Iran's foreign minister described the attacks as a 'declaration of war' and its supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Israel 'should expect severe punishment.' US President Trump urged Iran to 'make a deal' in a post on Truth Social Friday. 'There has already been great death and destruction, but there is still time to make this slaughter, with the next already planned attacks being even more brutal, come to an end,' he wrote. 'Iran must make a deal, before there is nothing left, and save what was once known as the Iranian Empire. No more death, no more destruction, JUST DO IT, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.' Laura Bratton is a reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow her on Bluesky @ Email her at Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data


Axios
30 minutes ago
- Axios
How much NASA spends on science in Utah
NASA spends an average of $11 million annually in Utah on scientific missions, per data from The Planetary Society, a pro-space nonprofit. Why it matters: NASA's science efforts bear the brunt of cuts to the agency in the Trump administration's proposed budget, which would slash science funding by nearly 50% to $3.9 billion. The big picture: Science represents roughly 30% of NASA's budget, supporting missions like space telescopes, robotic probes and satellites that gather data about Earth's changing climate. While not always as headline-grabbing as human spaceflight, NASA's science activity has greatly enhanced our scientific understanding of both Earth and our celestial neighborhood. By the numbers: NASA supported 2,375 jobs in Utah and generated $486.6 million in economic output and $17.2 million in state tax revenue in fiscal year 2023, per a state report. Over 60 suppliers in the state have contributed to the agency's Artemis moon exploration program. The intrigue: The proposed cuts come as some Utah officials want to position the state as a leader in space innovation. Gov. Spencer Cox signed a bill in March appropriating $1 million to study the feasibility of a spaceport in Utah for potential space exploration. Zoom out: California (about $3 billion), Maryland ($2 billion) and Texas ($614 million) saw the most average annual NASA science spending across fiscal 2022-2024, the data shows. Zoom in: Missions on the chopping block in President Trump's NASA budget include the Mars Sample Return, an ambitious joint American-European plan to collect Martian soil samples and bring them to Earth for further study. Nearly 20 active science missions would be canceled in total, the Planetary Society says, representing more than $12 billion in taxpayer investments. What they're saying: A chief concern, Planetary Society chief of space policy Casey Dreier tells Axios, is that already paid-for probes and telescopes would be deactivated even though they're still delivering valuable data. "They keep returning great science for the very fractional cost to keep the lights on. And a lot of these will just be turned off and left to tumble in space," Dreier says