The future of research belongs to those with clarity of purpose
Replacing US leadership means tackling fundamental questions about our research institutions’ role in society
I wrote this week for Research Europe on the consequences of a US retreat from science. You can read the piece here.
Below is a summary of the piece + a postscript.
Summary
For decades, the US has been the most connected node in the global research system. It has benefited from serious investment, has a broadly liberal and democratic society, and is home to many of the world's highest performing research institutions and labs. It has acted as a primary anchor of norms, collaborations, standards, and trust. This has made it a reliable partner for other research-intensive nations.
But under Trump this reliability is now in question. The NIH faces a 37% cut. The NSF has terminated hundreds of grants. The NEH and NEA face total elimination. The FDA is laying off thousands of staff. For US universities, the pressures are financial and political. International student admissions are being weaponised. Overheads are being slashed. Campuses have become political flashpoints.
When the most entangled node in a network falters, the effects are never contained, and those with the closest ties to the US will feel the largest effects. It's therefore deluded to think this faltering is an upside-only 'opportunity' for the UK – or for anyone else in the West, for that matter.
Meanwhile, China marches on. It now dominates the Nature Index, with 8 of the top 10 institutions for research output. Why? It is not just investment. China’s system is aligned: universities are backed to deliver national goals in tech, talent and competitiveness.
Western knowledge systems lack that clarity. Are our universities meant to pursue critical inquiry or serve the public interest? Collaborate globally or build national capability? When consensus breaks down, institutions are left fighting for basic legitimacy.
The problems run deeper, though. The US is not just cutting science but redefining it. Trump’s new executive order (Restoring Gold Standard Science) is a deeply political move, talking the talk of narrow standards and accountability, while walking the walk of increased political oversight of research. But, unlike in China, political control over US science seems likely to accelerate fragmentation rather than restore confidence.
When institutions in a divided democracy depend on political protection, international partners have good reason to hedge their bets.
The UK, despite strains on its system, retains international research credibility. Despite the odd skirmish with politicians, our institutions still enjoy relatively widespread public support. But international leadership must include achieving greater clarity on what our institutions are actually for – and how to reconcile global connectedness with UK interests. For this, we need a research policy that marries democratic freedom with seriousness, coherence and institutional resilience.
This means confronting tough questions about where and how research should be done, how to find 'purposeful freedom', and how to focus our resources properly. Here are a few starter-for-10 questions:
Where should cutting-edge research happen—in universities, independent institutes, or industry?
How much should research funding prioritise investigator-led free inquiry versus directed national priorities?
What does research leadership look like in a world where no single country can dominate?
How selective should we be about research priorities when resources are finite?
How do we protect and enhance important research capabilities when the system is in flux?
I cover this in more detail in the piece. Please take a read – it’s free!
Postscript
My piece focuses on lessons for HE because in the UK that is where the bulk of publicly funded science is undertaken. But it can also be argued that a more fundamental problem lies in public confidence in the entire system and enterprise of science itself.
It's interesting to consider the focus on both outcomes and process here. On outcomes, Trump’s desire to fund trade schools is obviously not only about Harvard (though some argue it is a personal vendetta). While we may not like it, it’s bound to be quite a popular move – because when the outcomes of science funding are contested, other routes might more clearly promise societal impact.
On the other hand, the Trump EO is interesting because it seems to reframe the public interest question in terms of process concerns – where research can no longer necessarily be trusted to deliver high-quality, reproducible results.
It is worth working through what this emphasis on process concerns means. In the UK, we are still talking about S&T in terms of achieving outcomes – and how to incentivise this better. Research process changes in the UK have rarely been driven by politicians (outside of a few areas like national security). Politicians have instead broadly left the research community to manage things, providing occasional cover where needed on contentious issues (like open access).
This is a favourable position to be in. But – and it's a big but – some community-driven process concerns (REF, EDI, disciplinary parity of esteem) do sometimes bubble up to the political level, and occasionally this has put the research community at odds with political imperatives.
Sometimes explosively so.
It's worth considering the topic of research bureaucracy here, which on the face of it is entirely about process – but which has had real political bite in the UK in recent years. “Slashing red tape for researchers” is something which straddles politics and academia, and while it's riddled with conflicting imperatives, it has a certain kind of universal appeal, and is unlikely to blow up in the same way as more contestable issues.
So if the UK is going to head off RFK-style challenges to research process integrity and legitimacy, confronting research bureaucracy might be a sensible place to start, building on the excellent Tickell Review.
But as I say in the piece, there can be no ducking the fundamental questions about outcomes.