For the primary time in American history Quantum computing was mentioned by a candidate during a presidential debate on September 10, 2024. After Vice President Kamala Harris brought up quantum technology, a heated argument erupted between her and former President Donald Trump over American chip manufacturing and China's rise in semiconductor manufacturing. During election campaigns, science and technology policy often takes a back seat to issues equivalent to immigration, the economy and health care.
What has modified for 2024?
From COVID-19 to climate change, ChatGPT to quantum computing, science-related topics are on Americans' minds policy makers And voters even. The federal government spends almost $200 billion yearly through scientific research and development to handle these and plenty of other challenges. However, presidents and Congress rarely agree on how and the way much money must be spent on science.
With the increasing public concentrate on global competitivenessThe Climate crisis And artificial intelligenceA better take a look at Trump and Harris' record on science and technology policy could provide a clue as to how they might approach these issues if elected this fall.
Two different visions for science funding
If politics could be described as “who gets what and when,” then it’s U.S. science and technology policy could be assessed through the annual research and development budget process. By this measure, the differences between the Trump and Biden-Harris administrations couldn’t be greater.
In his first budget request to CongressIn 2017, Trump rejected a long time of precedent and proposed historic cuts to almost all federal science agencies. Especially Trump targeted climate-related programs with the Department of Energy, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency.
Trump's fiscal policy has taken a page from that Reagan-era conservative orthodoxyprioritizing military spending over social programs, including research and development. However, unlike Reagan, Trump also aimed to advertise basic research, an area with long-standing bipartisan support in Congress. His three subsequent budget proposals were no different: across-the-board cuts to federal research programs while pushing for a rise in defense technology development and demonstration projects.
Congress rebuked just about all of Trump's demands. Instead, a number of the largest increases in federal research and development programs in U.S. history were passed before taking into consideration the emergency spending packages funded as a part of the administration's pandemic response.
In contrast, the Biden-Harris administration made science and innovation a centerpiece of its early policy agenda – with budgets to match. Biden and Harris took advantage of the slim Democratic majority in the course of the 117th Congress and enacted three landmark bills: the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs ActThe Inflation Reduction Act and the CHIPS and Science Act. These laws contain necessary R&D provisions focused on environmental projects (IIJA), clean energy (IRA), and American semiconductor manufacturing (CHIPS).
CHIPS established creation programs inside the National Science Foundation and the Department of Commerce regional technology centers to support American manufacturing. The law also set ambitious funding targets for federal science agencies, particularly the NSF, and called for the budget to double from $9 billion to greater than $18 billion over five years.
Despite its initial push for research and development, the Biden-Harris administration's last two budget proposals offered far less to science. Years of deficit spending and a brand new Republican majority within the House of Representatives are casting a shadow of fiscal austerity over Congress. Instead of pushing for a doubling of the NSF budget, the agency suffered a decrease of 8% in fiscal 12 months 2024 – the most important cut in over three a long time. For fiscal 12 months 2025, which runs from October 1, 2024 to September 30, 2025, Biden and Harris called for a meager 3% increase for NSF. Billions of dollars are missing the spending levels set by CHIPS.
An emerging consensus on China
On technology policy, Biden and Harris have more in common with Trump than they let on.
Their approach to competing with China in technology follows Trump's lead: They did it prolonged tariffs on Chinese goods and strict China's access restricted to U.S.-made computer chips and semiconductor manufacturing equipment.
Biden and Harris also gained Explore security efforts The aim was to guard US ideas and innovations from China. Trump began it China Initiative as an try to stop the Chinese government from stealing American research. The Biden-Harris administration ended this system in 2022, but Pieces of it stay in place. Scientific collaborations between the United States and China continues to say noto the detriment of American Scientific Leadership.
Costfoto/NurPhoto via Getty Images
The Biden-Harris administration has also drawn on Trump-era policies to bolster America's leadership in “Industries of the long run.” The term was coined by Trump’s then chief science adviser Kelvin Droegemeierrefers to five emerging technology areas: AI, quantum science, advanced manufacturing, advanced communications and biotechnology. This phrase was parroted by the Biden-Harris administration as part of its focus on: American manufacturing and all over the place Harris' campaignalso in the course of the debate.
In short, each candidates are aligned with a rising Washington cross-party consensus on China: innovation policy at home, strategic decoupling abroad.
Scientific advice will not be all the time a welcome resource
Trump's rejection and sometimes complete disregard for the scientific consensus is that this well documented. Out of “Sharpiegate“As he charted his own planned path for Hurricane Dorian, all of the method to withdrawing from the Paris climate accord, the World Health Organization and the Iran nuclear deal, Trump showed he was unwilling to take advice, let alone from scientists.
In fact, it took Trump over two years to rent Droegemeier as director White House Office of Science and Technology Policyor OSTP, doubling the previous record That's how long a president has needed to go with no scientific advisor. This absence was undoubtedly reflected in Trump's requests for a decent science budget to Congress, particularly early in his term.
On the opposite hand, the Biden-Harris administration has promoted science and innovation as a core a part of its broader economic policy agenda. This strengthened the OSTP's role: Biden is the primary president to appoint his scientific adviser – a position he currently holds Arati Prabhakar – as a member of his cabinet.
According to the law it’s President is required to appoint an OSTP director. But it's as much as the president to choose how and when to make use of their advice. If the brand new White House wants the U.S. to stay a worldwide leader in research and development, the science adviser must proceed to fight for it.
image credit : theconversation.com