October 24th, 2024

The US is the world’s science superpower — but for how long?

The US leads in science but faces competition from China. The upcoming election will influence funding and policies, impacting international talent retention and future scientific leadership amid budget constraints.

Read original articleLink Icon
The US is the world’s science superpower — but for how long?

The United States currently holds a dominant position in global science, having won more Nobel prizes than any other nation and investing significantly in research and development (R&D). However, concerns are rising about its future leadership in science, particularly in light of increasing competition from China, which is rapidly advancing in key scientific metrics. The upcoming presidential election is seen as crucial for determining the future of US science, as it will influence funding, immigration policies, and international collaboration. Despite the US spending approximately $1 trillion on R&D, China's investment is also surging, and it has already surpassed the US in producing scientific articles and PhDs. The US's reliance on international talent is another area of concern, as it attracts a significant number of foreign researchers, particularly from China and India. However, the perception of the US as less welcoming to foreigners could jeopardize its ability to retain this talent. The future of US science will depend on the next administration's commitment to funding and policies that support scientific research and education, especially in the face of a divided Congress and potential budget constraints.

- The US currently leads in scientific achievements but faces increasing competition from China.

- The upcoming election will significantly impact the direction of US science funding and policies.

- The US relies heavily on international talent, with a notable percentage of STEM PhDs awarded to foreign students.

- Concerns exist about the US's declining share of international students and researchers.

- Future scientific leadership will depend on sustained federal investment and a welcoming environment for foreign talent.

Link Icon 6 comments
By @Prbeek - 6 months
If you look at the kind of content coming out of China especially in physics and chemistry, expecting the US to lead in science in 5 or 10 years is being overly optimistic
By @rramadass - 6 months
Good Article. But i don't think the US has any cause for fear as long as;

1) Go back to the early policies enacted for driving Science & Technology using Public Funding specifically for Specialized Institutes and the overall Education System.

2) Pour more money into the above as much as possible so as to attract top talent into it.

3) Invite Immigration from all over the World with a clear path from Higher Education to Citizenship.

4) Continue to allow the Private Sector to do what it is already doing to great success.

And Oh; keep the petty Politics out of it. The US' advantage over China is 3 & 4.

By @bluenose69 - 6 months
This is a well-informed article, with some very compelling graphics. I don't care a whit what is said about politics or policy, because I doubt that many Nature readers will need help in making decisions about such things.

For me, the key is the data. I've never seen so much information, presented so clearly. The trends are quite clear. As someone who works in research, none of what I saw was actually surprising, but the article is a very helpful integrative resource.

By @herbst - 6 months
Biontech is German company. Let me guess, none of the nobel price guys is actually American?
By @avazhi - 6 months
“If science and academia become ideological endeavours,” he says, “it’s going to be hard for them to survive.””

The irony of this closing sentence being about 5 paragraphs below a paragraph praising Harris and bashing Trump was noticed by, apparently, nobody at Nature.

To be clear, I’m not a fan of Trump and I’ve never voted for him, but surely Nature should just stay out of explicit endorsements and bashing of one or the other political side if they are at all concerned about science becoming an ‘ideological endeavour’. It’s borderline insane to me that they would engage in blatant partisanship right after extolling the value of science at least APPEARING to be politically neutral.