Director Kratsios’ Address at the National Academy of Sciences
REVITALIZING AMERICA’S SCIENTIFIC ENDEAVOR
PREPARED FOR DELIVERY
Washington, D.C.
May 19, 2025
THE DIRECTOR: Thank you, Dr. McNutt, for that generous introduction and for inviting me to speak in this great sanctuary of science.
This morning, I stand before you not just as the President’s Science and Technology Advisor, but as a representative of a mission that carries immense weight—ushering in a Golden Age of Innovation. I have been entrusted with three key objectives: to uphold America’s technological supremacy, to ensure that every American benefits from the remarkable advancements in science and technology, and, perhaps most crucially, to revitalize our national scientific framework.
In my recent address, I highlighted that our nation’s technological leadership hinges on a dual approach of promotion and protection. Today, I wish to delve into our collective responsibility to enhance scientific progress.
***
The narrative of America has always been intertwined with exploration and discovery, deeply rooted in the efforts of our scientists. From the solitary inventor tinkering in his garage to teams of dedicated professionals in laboratories nationwide, their relentless quest to decode the secrets of the universe has not only propelled scientific advancement but has also laid the foundation for a free and prosperous society.
The remarkable trajectory of U.S. scientific dominance in the twentieth century can be traced back to Vannevar Bush’s seminal 1945 report, “Science, The Endless Frontier.” This document served as the blueprint for a collaborative research approach involving federal, corporate, and academic sectors. Bush not only charted a course for advancing wartime technologies but also ignited a vision that would ultimately see humanity plant its flag on the moon within a quarter-century.
However, as Dr. McNutt noted in her inaugural State of the Science address last year, there are valid concerns about the erosion of confidence in America’s ability to lead scientifically. While recent years have witnessed breakthroughs in various fields—such as CRISPR technology and the detection of gravitational waves—studies suggest that the volume of transformative papers and patents has markedly decreased since 1980.
We are facing diminishing returns. For instance, despite an explosion in biomedical research funding since the 1990s, our scientific output has stagnated, with new drug approvals plateauing or declining. It appears that simply pouring money into research does not equate to meaningful scientific breakthroughs; the money spent has not translated into impactful discoveries.
In the spirit of scientific inquiry, when we encounter evidence that challenges our prevailing theories, we must adapt our theories and conduct further investigations to grasp the truth. This evidence of a slowdown in scientific progress should motivate us to explore innovative systems, models, and funding strategies. As Dr. McNutt emphasized, our scientific landscape has evolved significantly since Dr. Bush’s time.
***
One notable shift has been in the landscape of scientific funding. Currently, industry invests over three times as much in research and development compared to the federal government, even financing more foundational research than what federal funding supports at universities.
While this shift alters the funding model that characterized the previous century, it also presents new opportunities. In an era marked by fiscal constraints and global challenges, the rise of private investment can enable federal grant-making bodies to refocus public funds on fundamental research and areas of national interest.
What we prioritize shapes what we measure, and what we measure influences what we achieve. To maximize the impact of America’s research expenditures, we need to refine our funding strategies. Allocating more resources to misguided initiatives is far worse than investing less in the right endeavors.
Innovative funding mechanisms—such as prizes, challenges, and public-private partnerships—can amplify the effectiveness of federal investments. We must align grants with clear strategic goals while maintaining the flexibility necessary for scientific exploration, thereby creating a funding climate that clarifies our national priorities.
***
Beyond re-evaluating our funding and oversight of science, we must also reflect on how we, as members of this national discovery endeavor, can revive the spirit of relentless inquiry and passionate pursuit of truth that has propelled our scientific advancements.
Two examples underline the necessity for a recommitment to what I term Gold Standard Science—a commitment to research principles that esteemed scientists aspire to but often compromise due to professional pressures and incentives.
A troubling incident in Alzheimer’s research reveals our susceptibility to scientific misconduct, particularly when we neglect the importance of reproducibility, the effective communication of errors, and a healthy skepticism. In 2009, a prominent biotech executive published a paper in Nature that claimed to offer a groundbreaking Alzheimer’s treatment. Fast forward to December 2023 when the journal retracted the paper due to numerous anomalies and errors, albeit without accusing the author of intentional fraud. This retraction came after nearly 15 years during which criticisms of the original research were overlooked, leading to over 800 citations and misallocation of substantial funding, culminating in the researcher’s ascension to the presidency of a prestigious university. Evidence of the paper’s irreproducibility was evident by 2012, yet it took a decade for the issue to be fully addressed.
Our scientific community should champion the practice of scrutinizing each other’s work rather than stifling the questioning of purported advancements.
Additionally, the decision to close schools during the COVID-19 pandemic epitomized a failure to confront uncertainties and to integrate knowledge from various fields. The best available scientific evidence suggested that children were neither at high risk for the disease nor significant vectors of infection. There were ample indications that remote learning and masked interactions would impede children’s development. Yet, a rigid adherence to consensus led to policies detrimental to America’s youth.
Biased interpretations of scientific data can lead to poor decision-making and diminish public trust.
***
The initial step toward restoring trust in America’s scientific community and laying a robust foundation for groundbreaking discoveries is a return to Gold Standard Science.
Scientific progress flourishes through community and transparency, where findings are rigorously validated by peers. Gold Standard Science is fundamentally reproducible and transparent. We must not allow errors to fester unaddressed, tainting the body of knowledge for others aiming to build upon previous findings, as illustrated in the Alzheimer’s research case. To facilitate this, researchers must proactively share errors and uncertainties. Through this openness, each generation can stand firmly on the shoulders of the giants who preceded them.
The most conducive environment for truly groundbreaking basic research is collaborative and interdisciplinary. As the collective body of scientific knowledge expands over time, it becomes imperative to rely on the expertise of colleagues from diverse fields. However, even with confidence in the skills of collaborators, the best scientists remain skeptical of their team’s findings and are acutely aware of the necessity to question their assumptions. Adopting these principles might have spared America’s children from the profound disruptions caused by pandemic-related school closures.
To reinforce these virtues, Gold Standard Science must be designed for falsifiability, subjected to unbiased peer review, and open to the acceptance of negative results as valuable contributions. Research funders, whether from government, academia, or the private sector, must collaborate with our top researchers to ensure that projects adhere to these elevated standards.
***
At the heart of what constitutes Gold Standard Science is a healthy skepticism of blind consensus and an appreciation for informed dissent. The current crisis of confidence among scientists arises from the fear that political biases are overshadowing the essential pursuit of truth.
Initiatives aimed at diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) pose a significant threat to the genuine diversity of thought that underpins the scientific community. Intellectual diversity is vital for scientific inquiry, empowering us to challenge entrenched beliefs and develop innovative solutions to complex problems.
As we navigate new paradigms in fundamental science, we cannot afford for America’s scientists to become mere pawns in an ideological game. A narrow-minded political agenda focused on symbolic victories fractures collegiality and distorts grant applications and research designs.
For instance, until recently, NASA—an agency dedicated to exploring the unknown and innovating for humanity’s benefit—required research proposals to include plans for advancing “inclusion goals.” Evaluation panels for these proposals were to consist of 50% DEI professionals. Such stipulations undermine merit-based evaluations, add to administrative burdens, and detract from essential, productive efforts.
Science must remain insulated from ideology, and scientists should not be compelled to follow a singular narrative.
A blind adherence to The Science, with a capital T and a capital S, stifles free inquiry and open debate, ultimately hindering scientific progress. The journey toward knowledge begins with acknowledging our ignorance. We strive for understanding, despite our limitations, transitioning from mere opinion to truth. It is convention, dogma, and intellectual trends that resist necessary revisions and corrections.
***
I believe that we are all united in this mission. We want America’s scientists to lead the world. We aspire to empower them to achieve awe-inspiring breakthroughs that will tackle formidable challenges and inspire future generations to follow in their footsteps. Moreover, we seek to mend the relationship between the scientific establishment and our fellow citizens.
However, this is not a task that government or industry can accomplish in isolation; the pioneering scientific framework established by Vannevar Bush still relies on collaboration, with America’s national laboratories and universities being its crown jewels.
We must work together to restore this partnership and revitalize America’s scientific enterprise.
By placing renewed emphasis on Gold Standard Science, we can begin to revolutionize how America approaches the quest for discovery. While this is a rallying cry for all of America’s scientists—whether in labs, in the field, or in offices nationwide—it starts with my colleagues and me in government. Implementing Gold Standard Science must take root in the policies and programs of federal agencies.
If we in government enable scientists to devote less time to administrative tasks and more time to exploring scientific frontiers; if we adapt to new realities and creatively partner with industry and philanthropy; if we reject fleeting political trends and recommit ourselves to the pursuit of truth: I am confident that we will reignite the American spirit that illuminated the world with Edison’s bulb, lifted the Wright brothers into the sky, and landed Armstrong on the moon.
Thank you.
