What politicians so often get wrong about science

Science and research funding have always been a topic of debate, especially when it comes to justifying their importance to those who hold the purse strings. The current situation in the United States highlights this tension, with the Trump administration making significant cuts to scientific programs. However, this is not a new phenomenon.

Back in 1969, Robert Wilson faced a similar challenge when seeking funding for a new particle collider at Fermilab. During his testimony before the US Congress, he was questioned about the practical benefits of the project in terms of national defense and competition with Russia during the cold war. Wilson’s response was profound: “It has nothing to do with the military… it has to do with: Are we good painters, good sculptors, great poets?… It has nothing to do directly with defending our country except to help make it worth defending.”

This utilitarian view often overlooks the fact that many groundbreaking discoveries stem from the pure pursuit of knowledge. The connection between discovery, application, and return on investment is not always straightforward. For example, without Albert Einstein’s musings on the experience of weightlessness in freefall, we wouldn’t have his theories of relativity, and subsequently, technologies like GPS that have transformed the world.

The unpredictable nature of scientific inquiry makes the current assault on science funding in the US particularly short-sighted. The consequences of slashed funding are much easier to foresee – from the loss of vital programs combating diseases like tuberculosis, malaria, and AIDS to the hindrance of crucial climate studies at NASA.

Reflecting on J. J. Thomson’s discovery of the electron in 1897, where he initially deemed it “useful for nothing,” we can see how this humble particle sparked the electric age and paved the way for a century of progress. What advancements are we potentially hindering today by impeding scientific research?