In Reply to: Imagine "Big Balls" evaluating science spending posted by mh on July 27, 2026 at 10:00:52
This is really an extension of a trend that has been underway for decades.
The world's most powerful particle collider was originally supposed to be built in Texas. The United States spent 12+ billions of dollars digging a big hole for the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) before Congress canceled the project. Many physicists have since argued that the project's leadership failed to convince Congress and the public why it was worth the enormous investment. At the same time, the collapse of the Soviet Union removed much of the geopolitical motivation for demonstrating American scientific dominance.
The end of the Cold War also changed federal research priorities. NASA's budget, which had been fueled in part by the space race, declined as that urgency faded. Conversely, biomedical research received enormous investment during the AIDS epidemic. That funding transformed virology, immunology, and vaccine research. Young scientists naturally gravitated toward fields with strong grant support because that is where careers and laboratories could be sustained. That is why we could create a Covid vaccine so fast. We had a lot of scientist who were pushed into this area of research due to ample funding.
Former Vice President Al Gore was often mocked for saying he "created the Internet," but what he actually did was champion legislation and funding that accelerated the expansion of the government-funded ARPANET into what became the modern Internet. Government investment played a central role in making that transformation possible.
The same funding dynamics influence many scientific disciplines. If the grant money is concentrated in one area—such as string theory during certain periods—researchers often pursue that field because it offers the best opportunities for funding, graduate positions, and tenure, even if progress proves more barren than initially hoped.
Science is ultimately driven not only by curiosity but also by incentives. Governments tend to invest heavily during periods of crisis or when a field aligns with national priorities. Without sustained political and financial support, even ambitious, potentially transformative projects can struggle to survive. As a result, researchers often face pressure to produce meaningful results quickly before priorities—and funding—shift elsewhere.