High-prestige research has trumped applied science in US budgets

Nature : Although it has long been assumed that the US favors applied over basic science, the opposite turns out to be true, writes Daniel Sarewitz for Nature. Over the past 15 years, agencies that serve public goals rather than advance science—the US Geological Survey, for example—have experienced minimal budgetary growth. Yet, over the same period, government funding for research doubled, with most of that money going to the National Institutes of Health and NSF. Sarewitz claims the funding allocation may be because advocacy for research funding comes mostly from the high-prestige frontiers of science and the institutions associated with such research. Nevertheless, addressing social problems, such as preventing and preparing for natural disasters, is just as important. To ensure that the scientific enterprise continues to meet challenges to public well-being, he says, science advocacy should seek a balance between the fundamental-science agencies and the mission agencies that link science to the public good.