Loading...
US scientific and technological leadership since World War II has been the product of deliberate policy choices that have included significant Federal investments in research and development (R&D), strong public-private partnerships (PPPs), and development of a robust skilled workforce. In the face of increasing geopolitical competition, a rapidly evolving economy, and a looming debt crisis, it is essential that policymakers maximize the impact of public investments in R&D as well as preserve and, where necessary, restore these pillars of US innovation that have supported US leadership to face 21st-century challenges. US scientific and technological leadership in the 20th century fueled unprecedented advances in national security, health care, economic growth, and living standards. In an economy increasingly driven by technology and facing growing competition from China, continued US leadership is more critical than ever. This is why the US must take urgent steps to maximize the impact of its public investments in R&D with a focus on national priorities in defense, health care, and basic science. This renewed focus on impact is particularly important as the US faces a debt crisis that poses significant challenges to the US economy and taxpayers, with a $1.9 trillion deficit in fiscal year 2024 alone. Indeed, the Committee for Economic Development (CED), the public policy Center of The Conference Board, has offered policy recommendations for reducing the debt. However, Federal R&D spending is a small (and shrinking) share of the Federal budget, totaling approximately $200 billion in the last fiscal year —about 3% of the total budget. This includes all types of Federal R&D spending—including for defense, space, and other core government functions—as well as spending designed to promote the basic science on which commercial advances (and US jobs) rely. This trend poses particular concerns for national security and biomedical research, which together account for nearly three-quarters of Federal R&D spending. Importantly, the government has played a declining role in funding R&D, accounting for about 18% of spending in 2022 compared to an average of 55% between 1953 and 1990. Indeed, while US expenditure on R&D overall as a share of GDP has increased in the postwar era, this has been largely driven by increased spending by industry, which boosted R&D investments from an average of 1% of GDP between 1953 and 1990 to about 2.7% in 2022. Still, R&D spending by industry, while important, does not substitute for public investments, which disproportionately support the basic research that private firms rely on when developing commercial products. Considering its fiscal challenges, the US must maximize the returns on its investments in R&D. Importantly, evaluations of Federal R&D spending consistently show substantial returns and economic benefits. A 2024 paper by Federal Reserve economists, for example, showed average returns of 140%-210% of additional economic output from Federal R&D spending in the postwar era and that government-funded R&D accounted for one-fifth of business productivity growth in that period. In addition, cutting Federal R&D by 20% instead of sustaining it as a constant share of GDP would shrink the economy by nearly $1 trillion and reduce tax revenues by close to $250 billion over 10 years. Research has also found that every additional $10 million dollars in National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding results in 2.7 additional private sector patents for US patent holders. These public investments support critical private investment that, when combined with regulatory reforms, will help accelerate innovation. Given the critical role R&D spending plays in fueling economic growth, it is imperative that, even as the US seeks to address its urgent debt crisis, policymakers maintain the investments that will extend US leadership in the decades ahead. Declining investments in R&D as well as global competition threaten the US lead in science and technology. To sustain America’s role, policymakers must rebuild the foundations of US scientific leadership through a comprehensive agenda that restores public confidence through improved oversight and evaluation, encourages different types of PPPs for national priorities, ensures the availability of a highly skilled workforce, leverages the role of research and educational institutions in the US innovation ecosystem, and prioritizes investments in R&D. Recognizing the looming US debt crisis along with the importance of prioritizing investments in R&D, policymakers should improve oversight and evaluation of public R&D spending to restore confidence in the stewardship of public funds. PPPs take many different forms; some involve Federal or other government funding and some do not. Recognizing the critical role of many different types of PPPs in facilitating scientific research and commercial advances, policymakers should consider additional strategic partnerships to address national priorities. The US needs an ample supply of highly skilled workers and entrepreneurs to achieve its R&D objectives and maintain scientific leadership. Congress should prioritize R&D funding while improving oversight and evaluation, including in basic and other research where government investments play a particularly important role. Scientific and technological innovations have underpinned US economic prosperity, global competitiveness, and national security for more than a century. Particularly since World War II, R&D funding has successfully leveraged a variety of types of PPPs between the government, universities, and businesses to develop, scale, and commercialize innovations. These funds include not only grants to universities and nonprofits but also contracts with industry such as defense contracts. These investments serve as the foundation of the US global lead in both basic research—focused on expanding knowledge for its own sake—and applied research, which leverages knowledge from basic research to advance practical objectives. Public research funding is therefore essential to facilitate private sector commercial advances. In the face of increasing geopolitical competition and a rapidly evolving economy, it is essential that policymakers continue to affirm and, where necessary, restore these pillars that supported US leadership in the last century to sustain its role into the next. A robust body of research indicates that Federal investments in R&D generate substantial returns and economic benefits. For example, a 2024 paper by Federal Reserve economists found that government nondefense R&D spending in the postwar period yielded returns of between 140% and 210%—meaning every dollar spent returned between $1.40 and $2.10 in additional economic output—and that government-funded R&D accounted for one-fifth of business productivity growth in that period. Another study found that, in fiscal year (FY) 2024, every $1 of NIH funding yielded $2.56 in new economic activity and that NIH’s $37 billion in 2024 grants supported nearly 408,000 jobs. Likewise, an evaluation of a portfolio of Department of Energy (DOE) R&D investments found a yield of $624 billion in net economic benefits on a Federal investment of $14 billion, and public investments in agricultural research have been shown to yield returns of 20%-60%. In addition, cutting Federal R&D by 20% instead of sustaining it as a constant share of GDP would shrink the economy by nearly $1 trillion and reduce tax revenues by close to $250 billion over 10 years. R&D successes also have broad spillover effects into other parts of the economy and society, including improving well-being and raising human potential. Often, these investments birth new industries. For example, the Human Genome Project, which included contributions from NIH, DOE, and about 20 global institutions, advanced the field of human genomics, which now supports more than 166,000 direct US jobs and 850,000 indirect jobs along with more than $265 billion in economic activity per year. During World War II, US programs laid the foundation for modern PPP models. The Manhattan Project, for example, involved critical contributions from researchers at the University of Chicago, Columbia University, and the University of California as well as a variety of private firms. In addition to the discovery of the principles for the atomic bomb, the Manhattan Project led to innumerable civilian technologies including nuclear energy, nuclear medicine (e.g., PET scans and cancer radiotherapy), and modern computing. Similarly, partnerships with universities including the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), California Institute of Technology (Caltech), Stanford, and the University of Michigan as well as firms including North American Aviation (later Boeing), Grumman, IBM, and Bell Labs were instrumental in space exploration. The innovations developed as part of this effort led to advances in microchips that underpin all modern electronics, telecommunications, materials sciences, and even cordless power tools. Likewise, the internet and GPS both began as projects of the Department of Defense (DOD) during the Cold War. The first four nodes of what would become the internet were located at UCLA, Stanford, UC Santa Barbara, and the University of Utah and funded with Federal grants. The development of GPS involved contributions from Stanford and Johns Hopkins. Similarly, NIH is the world’s largest funder of health and medical research, supporting both intramural research and extramural research. NIH and its predecessors have helped produce vaccinations for a wide range of diseases including smallpox, hepatitis A, and human papillomavirus. Ongoing NIH-funded research has also yielded breakthroughs related to the detection and treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, treatments that could reverse neurological disorders, customized gene therapies for individuals with cancer and rare diseases, and countless other discoveries. Like NIH, the Department of Agriculture (USDA) funds both intramural and extramural research that has led to breakthroughs in a range of areas including animal health, crop science, soil management, and pest control. USDA research has led to the development of techniques for predicting and managing soil erosion, more productive varieties of corn, pest-resistant varieties of potatoes, the Roma tomato, DEET insect repellent, and many other accomplishments. USDA continues research in critical areas, including treatments for hoof disease in cattle, strategies for combatting citrus greening disease (in collaboration with the University of Florida and Clemson University), and the development of new yellow bean varieties that help prevent iron deficiency. The DOE and its predecessors have invested heavily in energy science for civilian purposes, including research that has helped develop solar photovoltaics, wind turbine technology, advanced batteries, and hydraulic fracturing techniques. DOE partnerships with universities continue to advance research in a variety of areas including batteries and critical materials development—with the University of Texas, Stanford, the University of Michigan, and others—and nuclear fusion technology—with the University of Tennessee, MIT, the University of South Carolina, and others. The Federal government plays a critical role in supporting R&D across several dimensions, including providing direct funding for research, supporting the development of a STEM workforce, and maintaining infrastructure (e.g., labs) used to conduct research. Eight Federal agencies account for about 97% of the approximately $200 billion in Federal R&D spending (Figure 1), supporting both intramural and extramural research. The government also offers specific funding programs—Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR)—designed to help small businesses conduct R&D. Source: Congressional Research Service estimates using annualized appropriations provided by the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2024 (Division A of PL 118-15) Federal funding is particularly critical for the basic science that is later leveraged by the private sector for commercial products. A recent case study offers a helpful example of this pipeline. In August 2025, a New York health care network implanted a breakthrough bioelectronic medical device to treat rheumatoid arthritis in patients not responding to existing treatments. The device’s development built on decades of work conducted, in part, by the network’s medical research institute in collaboration with scientists from NIH, DARPA, and global research institutions and device manufacturers. Indeed, in 2021, the research institute received a five-year $3.7 million NIH grant to support bioelectronic medical research. Though Federal funding accounted for about 18% of total US R&D in 2023, it accounted for about 41% of funding for basic science. Conversely, businesses account for 35% of spending on basic science, but 88% of spending on development. Federal funding for applied research is also essential to capitalizing on discoveries stemming from basic research. About 29% of Federal R&D spending is directed toward applied research, a particular focus for agencies such as DOD, where about 75% of the research budget is for applied research. Applied research funding is also critical to certain fields including advanced computing and biodefense. Notably, all three sectors—government, universities, and industry—conduct both basic and applied research. Further, some experts have argued that the distinction between basic and applied research is arbitrary and ignores the nonlinear exchange between the two modes of discovery. Indeed, NSF and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) sponsor a program to facilitate interactions between basic and applied research projects. Recognizing the need for renewed investment, policymakers have taken a variety of steps in recent years to improve US research capacity. For example, Congress passed a series of measures supporting R&D, including the CHIPS and Science Act (CHIPS). CHIPS authorized $174 billion for R&D across the public and private sectors as well as additional funds for STEM education and semiconductor workforce development. However, appropriations have fallen short of authorized amounts, including an 8% decrease to NSF in the last fiscal year. More recently, the Administration’s AI action plan recognized the need to invest in training programs for the workforce needed to build AI infrastructure (e.g., electricians, HVAC technicians). Federally funded research and development centers are also essential to supporting US leadership in science and technology. The US currently supports 41 such centers, administered primarily by universities and nonprofit organizations. These include, for example, 17 facilities sponsored by DOE that generated breakthroughs ranging from advanced supercomputing, the internet, nuclear power, advanced batteries, and shale gas extraction. Other agencies also maintain specialized research infrastructure. The NIH Clinical Center is the world’s largest hospital devoted entirely to clinical research, with a long history of medical discoveries, including treatments for cancer, cardiovascular disease, and infectious diseases. Likewise, NASA maintains more than a dozen research centers focused on space and aeronautics, NIST operates six labs focused on topics including communications technology and cybersecurity, and USDA operates research centers throughout the country, including the largest agricultural research center in the world. In addition to funding R&D, the Federal government, in partnership with US universities, has long played a central role in building and sustaining an educated workforce. As World War II neared its end, the US passed the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act (also known as the GI Bill) to help returning veterans transition to civilian life by, among other things, providing financial assistance to pursue college and vocational school. Within first seven years of the legislation, about 8 million veterans took advantage, and the number of postsecondary degree holders doubled between 1940 and 1950. Research has found that the World War II GI Bill and similar legislation passed during the Korean War boosted postsecondary attainment among men of that era by about 15 to 20%. The Soviet Union’s launch of Sputnik in 1957—and concern that the US was falling behind technologically—prompted policymakers to focus specifically on the education of US students in science and math. Congress passed the National Defense Education Act in 1958 to “insure trained manpower of sufficient quality and quantity to meet the national defense needs of the United States” by authorizing $1 billion over seven years to support student loans, fellowships, and other supports for science and math education. Federal agencies continue to play an essential role in educating the STEM workforce. For example, the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program supports 2,300 fellowships for early-career researchers. NSF also runs the Research Experiences for Undergraduates program, which provides students with opportunities to gain valuable research experience with faculty at host institutions such as universities. Similarly, the NIH and DOE provide training grants that support graduate students and postdoctoral researchers at universities. Investments in training STEM entrepreneurs also include the Activate Fellowships, supported by nonprofits and entities including DOE, NSF, and DARPA, which provide early-stage researchers with funding, technical resources, and access to a strong network of mentors and partners. These investments in students and early-career researchers provide long-term benefits not only for participants, but also for the advancement of research more generally. For example, research has found that physicians who participated in an NIH training program mentored more researchers and garnered more publication and citations than comparable physicians. Other policies, including the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, the Perkins Act, Pell Grants, and student loans as well as immigration policies play an important role in supplying not only a robust STEM workforce, but also the skilled technicians, tradespeople, entrepreneurs, and support staff who build and maintain the infrastructure—from labs to data centers—required to advance scientific discovery and technical innovation. This CED report recommends policy measures to address critical labor shortages in these fields. The US has maintained an edge in science and technology by pairing sustained funding with robust PPPs and other efforts to build basic and applied science. That edge, however, is now under pressure due to decades of underinvestment and heightened geopolitical competition. Federal R&D investments have fueled US innovation for more than a century—between 1953 and 1990, R&D spending averaged about 1.3% of GDP, and the government accounted for about 55% of total US R&D spending. While the US remains the world’s largest R&D investor—spending $886 billion in 2022 (3.5% of GDP)—the government share of R&D spending declined to 18% (0.63% of GDP) in 2022, leaving the US more reliant on private investments (Figure 2). This shift is consequential because, as described earlier, public and private R&D play distinct and complementary roles. Private industry excels at applied research and product development, where commercial returns are clear and relatively near-term. By contrast, government is uniquely positioned to make long-horizon, foundational investments in basic science and some applied science—investments that often lack immediate market payoff but can ultimately undergird transformative innovations. Government can also sustain R&D investments in periods where private sector budgets fall. This helps avoid slowing down future advancements from factors relating to short-term economic cycles. Underinvestment in basic science erodes the foundation that supports groundbreaking innovations. For example, a Congressional Budget Office analysis estimated that a 10% reduction in NIH funding would lead to a 4.5% reduction in the number of new drugs coming to market annually. Several other policy changes weigh on university research budgets. For example, NIH, NSF, and other agencies have capped reimbursements for indirect costs—which typically include things like facilities maintenance, equipment, interest on debt, and administration—that could be included in research grants at 15%. This is a significant reduction from the reported typical rate of 30%-70%. Increased tax rates on university endowments as well as a proposed change to the patent fee system that would charge patent holders 1%-5% of the value of their patents could further strain budgets. Together these policies may threaten the ability of universities to sustain long-term projects and to train the next generation of scientists and engineers. The US is in a global competition for scientific and technological leadership. The US did not take the lead in science and technology until the mid-20th century, during which it faced competition from the Soviet Union, crystalized by the launch of Sputnik in 1957. During this time, the US invested heavily in R&D, which translated into widespread technological advances that have shaped modern life. After the Soviet Union’s collapse, the US enjoyed a period of undisputed global leadership in science and technology; however, the US is again in a period of geopolitical competition. Indeed, according to the World Bank, global spending on R&D has increased as a share of GDP. After steadily averaging about 2% between 1996 and 2013, spending began to climb, reaching 2.67% in 2022. Importantly, the US is facing particularly strong competition from China. Beginning in the 2000s, Chinese investments in R&D and higher education rose sharply, significantly outpacing US growth in R&D, and China is now second in R&D spending. In 2007, US government R&D funding was roughly 10 times that of China; by 2023, it was just 17% higher (Figure 3). In 2018, China surpassed the US for the share of the most cited research papers, a key measure of research capacity. Chinese universities have also made significant gains in global rankings through gains in research productivity. Indeed, the US and China are close competitors in key industries, including AI, 5G, quantum computing, and semiconductors. In many areas, China’s substantial manufacturing base and supply chain infrastructure also provide key advantages. Source: OECD, Main Science and Technology Indicators Database, March 2025, https://oe.cd/msti The lead in science and technology the US built in the 20th century stands on three essential pillars: Federal R&D investments, successful PPPs, and a robust STEM workforce. The US must reinvigorate these pillars as it seeks to sustain its leadership role into the 21st century. While increasing investments in R&D is essential, the US also faces a looming debt crisis. It is therefore critical that policymakers ensure that investments are used effectively and prioritize areas with the largest potential benefits while also incorporating national security and economic considerations. Agencies should adopt recommendations outlined by the Government Accountability Office, including better vetting of researchers and grantmaking to mitigate national security threats, refining tracking of how Federal research contributes to drug development, and improving project management and cost oversight of major infrastructure projects. Agencies should also improve coordination across intramural and extramural research efforts to reduce duplicative efforts and share insights. Policymakers should also take steps to improve the funding process and maximize the impact of public investments. For example, accessible agency liaison programs could help facilitate the movement of R&D successes through the regulatory process to quickly translate research breakthroughs into practical applications. In addition, harmonizing administrative requirements across funding agencies—for example, establishing shared application, documentation, and peer-review processes—would help reduce burdens on researchers. In addition to ongoing research partnerships, policymakers should consider targeted PPPs to address national priorities, a strategy that has succeeded well in the past. Efforts including the Manhattan Project and Apollo Program demonstrate that goal-oriented PPPs can help address specific national priorities while generating scientific and technological insights that yield commercial innovations. Addressing threats to the supply chains for critical minerals and semiconductors may warrant particular attention. DARPA, ARPA-E (energy), and ARPA-H (health) have proven that lean, risk-tolerant, and highly networked PPP structures can generate transformative breakthroughs. Congress could consider expanding this model, for example, by establishing ARPA-C for advanced chips and computing sciences and ARPA-Ag for advanced agriculture (which has been piloted as the Agriculture Advanced Research and Development Authority, or AGARDA)—to fund bold, high-risk, high-reward research. Agencies could also work to ensure coordination between the R&D and procurement pipelines to both build markets for new technologies and ensure agency access to cutting-edge innovations. Agency-affiliated charitable organizations such as the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health also help leverage private contributions from a range of sources to advance public objectives. Building a highly skilled STEM workforce is as critical as expanding research budgets. Without enough trained scientists, engineers, and technicians, even the most ambitious Federal investments will fall short. Congress should provide additional funding to expand agencies’ fellowship and training programs—including NSF’s Graduate Research Fellowship Program, DOE’s Office of Science Graduate Fellowships, and NIH’s T32 training grant—and add new focus on training future generations of entrepreneurs. Immigration reform is central to any STEM workforce strategy, as research shows that high- skilled immigrants contribute disproportionately to innovation, entrepreneurship, and productivity growth. Nearly half of international students in the US are enrolled in STEM programs, and foreign students account for about one-third of all STEM doctoral degrees. However, many students are forced to leave the US after graduation. As CED noted in a recent report, policymakers should consider extending the length of time allowed under the Optional Practical Training program. The pathway to permanent status should be almost automatic for immigrants desiring it who have successfully met all requirements during their temporary visa term and especially for those trained on Federally funded projects. Too often, international students who received funded graduate research assistant or postdoc positions leave the US, representing a lost investment. Retaining foreign graduates in high-demand sectors represents a low-cost, high-yield opportunity to expand the skilled labor force. In addition, despite strong demand for H-1B visa workers from US employers, Congress has not increased the limit of 65,000 plus 20,000 for those with advanced degrees since 1990 (though it has exempted some workers from the limit over time). In 2025, for example, employers requested H-1B visas for about 470,000 individuals, but only 135,000 were approved (including those that do not count against the statutory cap). To align immigration with labor market needs and maintain US competitiveness, policymakers should significantly expand employment-based visa allocations and expedite visa processing, particularly for high-demand occupations. Investments must also be made in workforce development, including increasing access to STEM internship and apprenticeship programs and investing in STEM education and workforce training at all grade and age levels, including preparing those currently in the workforce for an AI-driven economy. As CED noted in a recent report, policymakers should boost funding for workforce development efforts while improving program coordination. In addition, educators and policymakers must work together to ensure an adequate supply of the skilled trade workers that support STEM efforts (e.g., electricians and advanced manufacturing technicians). Programs can also expand support for entrepreneurship and commercialization pathways that equip scientists and engineers to become start-up founders. For example, DOE’s Lab-Embedded Entrepreneurship Program (LEEP) helps participants transition early-stage energy start-ups or technologies into the market. Universities and incubators can play a critical role by integrating entrepreneurship training into STEM curricula, connecting students with mentors and investors, and supporting technology transfer initiatives that help move discoveries from the lab to the marketplace. In the face of an increasingly competitive geopolitical landscape and potentially disruptive technologies like AI, the US must renew its financial commitment to the R&D—particularly basic research—that has formed the backbone of American innovation for more than a century while at the same time increasing oversight and evaluation of spending to maximize the impact of public investments. Extramural research Extramural research, funded by grants, contracts, and other arrangements, is an essential component of investments in R&D. NIH operates the largest Federal grant portfolio, distributing more than $39 billion (82% of its budget) annually in extramural biomedical research to about 300,000 researchers at 2,500 universities, medical schools, and other research institutions. NSF funds basic research in nonmedical fields (about $7 billion in FY 2024) and STEM education (about $1 billion). A variety of other agencies, including DOD through the Basic Research Office and DOE through the Office of Science, offer extramural research programs. As CED has noted previously, though Congress authorized significant increases in R&D funding, actual appropriations have fallen short. Congress should ensure appropriations match funds authorized under CHIPS. In addition, Congress should boost funding for basic research and make strategic investments in areas related to national security (e.g., critical minerals, energy, and semiconductors) and medical science. Policymakers should also ensure that changes to indirect cost policies do not threaten research while also responsibly stewarding taxpayer funds. For example, Congress could boost funding specifically allocated for research infrastructure or direct grantees to directly account for infrastructure costs in their grants. Policymakers could also adjust the grantmaking process to increase the pipeline of new awardees—for example, by reserving a portion of funds for first-time applicants and start-ups. At the same time, agencies should maintain the role of domain experts in the grantmaking process to focus funding on the most promising work. In addition, given the overall importance of small business to the US economy, Congress should avoid a lapse in authorization for the SBIR and STTR programs and add more pathways for early stage deep-tech start-up funding. Intramural research Intramural research also plays a unique and indispensable role in the US innovation system. Congress should boost funding for intramural research budgets across the Federal research agencies and maintain actual appropriations at least at the levels it has authorized. While budget priorities do change from Congress to Congress and from Administration to Administration, maintaining actual appropriations at least at the levels Congress has authorized —along with oversight of how those funds are used—best ensures continued US leadership in the science and technology research that leads to commercial advances for US companies, signals that our research infrastructure will remain well funded to attract the best students, and lays a foundation for future growth of the US science and technology ecosystem, public and private. At a time when other nations are increasing their commitment to scientific research, questions about the US’ long-term commitment can have an outsize effect on where students choose to study and where companies seek to conduct their own research. Agencies should also expand rotation and fellowship opportunities that bring graduate students, postdocs, and early-career researchers into intramural programs, creating pathways for hands-on training in advanced labs. Fellowship programs could be tied explicitly to national priorities so that trainees build expertise in areas of strategic priority. Agencies may also increase the use of Intergovernmental Personnel Act programs (e.g., the NIH IPA Mobility Program and NSF IPA Assignments) and agency-industry fellowships to circulate knowledge across sectors. This model would allow midcareer industry professionals to serve terms within Federal science programs and send Federal researchers into private-sector labs or start-ups, especially in frontier domains such as AI, quantum, semiconductors, and biomanufacturing. In addition, policymakers should continue to broaden the geographic and institutional footprint of the Federal R&D apparatus while ensuring coordination and collaboration between various initiatives, including the NSF Regional Innovation Engines Program, the Economic Development Administration’s Tech Hubs Program, and the various national labs. Infrastructure State-of-the-art research infrastructure—from national labs to clinical centers—forms the backbone of US science, offering world-class assets such as exascale supercomputing platforms (e.g., El Capitan at the Lawrence Livermore National Lab, currently the world’s fastest supercomputer, and the NIH Clinical Center, the world’s largest hospital dedicated to clinical research). These facilities serve both Federal and non-Federal researchers, facilitating collaboration across government, universities, and industry. However, a severe backlog of deferred maintenance and repairs (DMR) threatens the potential research output of these facilities and contributes to escalating repair costs. Sustained investment is essential to modernize and maintain this infrastructure to enable cutting-edge research. Congress should act to boost funding specifically for research infrastructure to address the DMR backlog. Agencies should also continue to look for opportunities to broaden access to research facilities, including through Cooperative Research & Development Agreements, while safeguarding national security and intellectual property. With the US lead in science and technology under threat, policymakers should recommit to the strategy that helped establish US leadership in the 20th century. The US cannot afford complacency. Renewed investment in R&D and improved oversight, strong public-private partnerships, and a diverse, highly skilled workforce are essential to sustaining America’s scientific leadership. Policymakers must act now to avoid ceding ground to global competitors and to ensure that innovation continues to drive prosperity and security for all Americans. Trusted Insights for What’s Ahead®
Introduction
Recommendations
Improve oversight, evaluation, and impact of public investments
Leverage public-private partnerships for national priorities
Ensure availability of a highly skilled workforce and entrepreneurship
Prioritize Federal investments in R&D
Foundations of US Leadership in Science and Technology
Economic benefits of investments in R&D
A legacy of breakthroughs
The Federal Role in Science and Technology
Funding
Federal infrastructure
A skilled workforce
Challenges to the US Lead in Science and Technology
Increasing geopolitical competition
Steps to Maintain US Leadership
Improve oversight, evaluation, and impact of public investments
Leverage public-private partnerships for national priorities
Ensure availability of a highly skilled workforce and entrepreneurs
Sustain Federal investments in R&D
Conclusion
Video
Amidst a federal debt crisis and increasing global competition, how can policymakers focus on prioritizing the impact of federal R&D spending?
US Lead in Public R&D is Eroding
October 20, 2025
Sustainable Energy Independence
September 22, 2025
2024 US Energy Production
September 22, 2025
Early Care and Education as an Economic Engine
August 18, 2025
Responding to US Labor Shortages
June 16, 2025
Email
Linkedin
Facebook
X
Copy Link