Sen. Susan Collins Blasts Trump for Cuts to Scientific Research

Meanwhile, a new study from American University shows budget cuts to public research would significantly hurt the economy in the long run, with large negative effects on GDP, investment and government revenue.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) kicked off a Wednesday hearing criticizing ​​the Trump administration for cutting science funding, firing federal scientists and triggering policy uncertainties that she said threaten to undermine the foundation for America’s global leadership. 

Collins, chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said the administration’s abrupt cancellation of grants and laying off scientists have little or no justification. “These actions put our leadership in biomedical innovation at real risk and must be reversed,” she said. 

Her warning came as American University’s Institute for Macroeconomic & Policy Analysis published a study Wednesday showing how major cuts to federal funding for scientific research could cause economic damage equivalent to a major recession. 

In the first 100 days of Trump 2.0, the administration has fired 1,300 employees from The National Institutes of Health, the largest funder of biomedical research in the world, and cancelled more than $2 billion in federal research grants. 

Earlier this week, the administration dismissed all the scientists and other authors working on the next authoritative look at how climate change is affecting the U.S. 

In one such cutback, the Trump administration stripped almost $4 million in federal funding from Princeton’s climate research department as it determined that Princeton’s work did not align with the objectives of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 

The White House said Princeton’s research on topics including sea level rise, coastal flooding and global warming promoted “exaggerated and implausible climate threats,” according to a U.S. Department of Commerce press release earlier this month explaining the funding cuts.

The White House is expected to propose additional reductions in discretionary spending as part of the annual budget process. Federal agencies like the NIH and the National Science Foundation are among the few funding basic and applied scientific research.

The study, from a group of American University economists, is among the first to run preliminary macroeconomic estimates of the cost of the Department of Government Efficiency and the Trump administration’s cuts to public spending on science. 

The study’s macroeconomic model used various scenarios, one of which looking at 25 percent cuts to public research and development spending. A cut of that magnitude, the study found, would reduce gross domestic product (GDP) by approximately 3.8 percent in the long run, over roughly 25 to 30 years. It’s a decline comparable to that of the Great Recession ending in 2009, albeit over the span of years rather than months.

Under this scenario, government revenue would decrease by approximately 4.3 percent each year. If R&D spending were to be cut in half, GDP would decrease by more than 7.5 percent, the economists found. It also would drastically affect living standards moving forward and reduce government revenue by 8.6 percent annually.

The study describes how private businesses lack the financial incentive to fund basic and applied scientific research and development and how government agencies like the NIH and NSF ameliorate the market failure. Investing in basic science can often be too risky for the private sector to take on, said Ignacio González Garcia, one of the report’s authors and an assistant professor of economics at American University. The returns of basic science come long after and can be too diffuse to be worthwhile for any single private firm taking on the risk. 

But basic science is what drives the technological innovation and progress that leads to economic growth, he said. 

“This is about the society that we build together, how we invest in the future,” González Garcia said. “Everything starts with basic science—everything starts with stuff that most of the time is publicly funded.”

The cuts to the federal agencies have largely included funding for academic medical centers and other institutions. The Association of American Universities sued the Department of Health & Human Services and the NIH in February over NIH funding cuts the group said would destroy medical research at American universities and put quality of life in the U.S. at stake. 

“The effects will be immediate and devastating,” the group wrote in its legal complaint, filed in a federal district court in Massachusetts. “… Even at larger, well resourced institutions, this unlawful action will impose enormous harms, including on these institutions’ ability to contribute to medical and scientific breakthroughs.” 

The group filed another suit April 11 after the administration announced it would attempt to cut funding for Department of Energy research grants to colleges and universities. 

Cover photo:  Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) talks with reporters at the U.S. Capitol on April 1 in Washington, D.C. Credit: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images