Frank A. Boyd, Ph.D.
Frank Boyd is Vice President of the Higher Education Practice at McAllister & Quinn. Frank brings 26 years of experience in higher education as a faculty member and academic administrator.
It is beyond dispute that the United States has been the world leader in research and innovation since World War II, in large part due to the incredibly productive relationship between the scientific community in higher education, on the one hand, and the federal government, on the other. The initial months of President Trump’s second term brought a flurry of proposed changes to the landscape of federal grant funding in the United States. Speculation on the work of many federal agencies —the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) among them—received coverage from a wide swathe of media outlets, especially those that focus on higher education.
After pausing, the scientists who review proposals returned to work, and the agencies began releasing new grant solicitations and announcements of awards. Even with signs that work resumed for many (but not all) agencies, the Trump transition increased uncertainty about federal funding, especially for programs in higher education. Given these events, it seems timely to review the history of federal support for research and development as a reminder of the mutually beneficial relationship between the policy goals of the federal government and grant-funded research at institutions of higher education (IHEs).
Since the 1940s, each successive presidential administration has structured opportunities for competitive grant funding to promote policy goals and support basic research in STEM and other disciplines. Alongside the debate over “reforms” of federal agencies, it might be useful to review how the US has sustained its leadership in R&D, and to discuss the effects of potential disinvestment for policymakers, scientists, and citizens.
The US’ Role as a World Leader in R&D Investment
The United States’ position as the global leader in R&D investment was secure by the end of World War II, but prior to the United States’ entry into the war in 1940, total investment in R&D was only 1% (in inflation-corrected dollars) of today’s total. Moreover, the federal government only funded one-fifth of the total research and development in the US. The private sector and foundations provided the rest.[i]
Then came World War II. The federal government recognized that researchers in IHEs could be mobilized to conduct the basic research that would be needed for wartime purposes. To do so, the government provided contracts and grants for faculty at colleges and universities that equipped laboratories and compensated researchers for their work. Recognizing that IHEs would be bearing the ancillary costs of research, the federal government also agreed to pay the indirect costs that are necessary to sustain research and that would otherwise be borne by the institution.
Historians have chronicled the remarkable role played by the government in the 1950s that created an R&D infrastructure that propelled innovation and economic growth in the last half of the twentieth century.[ii] The US R&D exploded in the post-war 1950s, in part a response to the Sputnik launch in 1957. Policymakers and scientists were alarmed by the Soviets’ apparent technological progress, and a consensus emerged that federal investments would be essential for maintaining US superiority in R&D. The US’ share of global investment in research and development rapidly expanded to 69% by 1960, with the federal government providing more than half of that total. The impact on the broader economy was tremendous, with the United States generating 40% of the world’s GDP.[iii]
How Federal Funding Drives Innovation
Government leaders established partnerships with researchers in higher education because the national interest demanded it. There is a voluminous historical literature that details this process, and the 2023 film Oppenheimer features dramatic scenes of the actor Cillian Murphy portraying Robert Oppenheimer’s arguments to government officials and university scientists. For reasons that are obvious in retrospect, Oppenheimer argued that federally funded collaboration was essential, and that the government’s self-interest guided investment in facilities and people. Put simply, research funding was recognized as a cost-efficient way of addressing the policy priorities of the country, and a means of harnessing the expertise of the professoriate for the public good.
In the years that followed, there emerged a shared understanding that funding basic research in higher education created the infrastructure that allowed the US to respond to new opportunities and to crises that were unforeseen. Examples abound. For instance, some of the basic research on atomic clocks—research that is ongoing—led to the development of global positioning systems. Scientists engaged in federally funded work on magnetism and atomic physics led to the development of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and technology that is now ubiquitous in healthcare. The most profound example in recent years was with Operation Warp Speed, the federally funded effort to rapidly develop vaccines to address the COVID pandemic.[iv] While impressive, the push to create an effective vaccine built on millions of dollars in federally funded research from the NIH on mRNA. Without the basic science that preceded it, the timeline required to successfully end the pandemic would have been much, much longer.
The Risks of Disinvestment in Research and Development
The leadership role occupied by the United States is threatened by some of the proposed reductions in federal investment in research and in the potentially diminished role of higher education. One of the immediate implications could be a diminished workforce that is capable of working on contemporary issues such as artificial intelligence, cybersecurity and more. Some of the proposed reductions of funding even seem at odds with statements made by the president’s close advisor Elon Musk, who has noted that there is a paucity of talent in the US to address the demand for computer science professionals.
Neal Lane, former director of the NSF, notes that “…the private sector does a lot of very important, primarily applied research and development. But they really don’t fund the same kind of research where you are really exploring the frontier.” [v]
Conclusion
Even a cursory review of federal funding in the US lays bare the benefits that accrue to the citizens of our country. Further, the investments in research that have been made by each presidential administration have expanded an R&D infrastructure that serves the public good, whether it be for national security, innovations in healthcare, or supporting the education and training of young scientists. The landscape today has dramatically shifted, with investments from the US losing ground to China. The rate of China’s investments in recent years has almost doubled that of the US, so that now the two countries have a nearly equal share of global R&D. Republican Senator Todd Young wrote in March that, “Funding for R&D isn’t a gift to academia,” in a call for policymakers to recognize this “vital ingredient in our innovation future, economic and geopolitical competitiveness.”[vi] Higher education has been and will be an essential partner in this effort.
President Trump emphasized the importance of this enterprise in a late-March letter to Michael Kratsios, Director of The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. In the letter, President Trump alluded to the legacy of Vandevar Bush in establishing the United States’ position as the global leader in research and innovation. The President wrote:
We need new paradigms for the research enterprise, including innovative models for funding and sharing scientific research, redefining how America conducts the business of discovery. We must build an ecosystem that attracts top talent, celebrates merit, protects our intellectual edge, and enables scientists to focus on meaningful work rather than administrative box checking.
One aspect of this effort will be the continued partnership between higher education and the federal government on R&D. Of course there will be changes, and the coming months will provide more information about the new landscape for federal funding. IHEs that are engaged in federal grant-seeking will be positioned to take advantage of the new opportunities to come.
Some of the most meaningful work that we do at McAllister & Quinn is to help IHEs secure funding for their research enterprise. We are working diligently to provide real-time strategic intelligence to our clients as the landscape quickly changes. Institutions of higher education that are equipped with information to adapt and pivot to quickly shifting federal priorities will be best situated once the dust settles.
About McAllister & Quinn
McAllister & Quinn is a premier federal grant consulting and government relations firm. Based in Washington, DC, McAllister & Quinn’s unique approach has helped college and university clients secure over $1 billion in federal and foundation grant funding. For more information about how McAllister & Quinn partners with institutions, please Contact Frank Boyd to schedule a conversation.
Sources
[i] National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators, 2024, (Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation, 2024)
[ii] Vandevar Bush is the towering figure that guided the early development of the US’ research infrastructure.
[iii] National Academy of Sciences (US) Committee on Criteria for Federal Support of Research and Development. ”Allocating Support for Science and Technology,” Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 1995.
[iv] Slaoui, Moncef, and Matthew Hepburn. ”Developing Safe and Effective Covid Vaccines — Operation Warp Speed’s Strategy and Approach,“ The New England Journal of Medicine, 2020. 383:1701-1703.
[v] Lambert, Jonathan. ‘Unprecedented’: White House moves to control science funding worry researchers,” National Public Radio (NPR), February 7, 2025.
[vi] Young, Todd and Matthew Pottinger. ”Funding for R&D isn’t a Gift for Academia,” Washington Post, March 24, 2025. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/03/24/research-development-china-national-security/