95
It's kind of annoying how every metric the gray heads use either boils down to money or is just directly money. It's like that's all that matters to them.
I dont think money spent on science is necessarily a bad metric for quantifying how much a government is prioritizing science. I do agree that more money spent on science != better science. I know from my own experience in geology that there are some things that China does well and a lot that they are really behind on and there's a lot of sub-par science that comes out of China. Does that matter when science is just a numbers game in the modern context? I couldn't say
The Clinton era proved just spending more does not equal better science.
What are you referring to? Im not American and Clinton was before my time
Clinton doubled the NIH budget in his tenure and even moved DARPA money into biomedical research. >$20B a year more spending, but it did not translate to more success in diseases research.
I think it's more of a way to get a quantitative comparison rather than just being about money. Don't get me wrong, money has corrupted everything. But in certain cases when you need to compare value between things, the closest thing we have to a common denominator is moolah.
I'd say material results are a pretty good metric.
And how do you compare the results? Can you say definitively that a cure for one disease is more important than another? What metrics do we use? Number of lives affected? Physical pain avoided? Who decides the final say in value? You need a medium to get an approximate value.
China’s rise did not create this decision point, although it brings it into sharp relief. Does the U.S. still want to lead in science? The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a nonprofit think tank, estimates that a 20% cut in federal research and development starting in fiscal year 2026 would shrink the U.S. economy by nearly $1 trillion over 10 years and reduce tax revenue by around $250 billion. Others point out that the scientific enterprise has contributed at least half of U.S. economic growth.
20% cut? He just fired all 24 members of the National Science Board.
There's much to critisize about this administration but you gotta hand it to them, they've fucked USA more than any adversary could.
Others point out that the scientific enterprise has contributed at least half of U.S. economic growth.
Before Trump, the support of scientific research spending was bipartisan. Hundreds of studies showing the ROI was huge.
History didn't start with Trump. It may well end with him
And China has the advantage when you consider the cost.
China is not pulling ahead in research spending, USA is stepping way back to insure no tech is in the pipeline for the future.
It's clearly both. China is a country of 1.4bln people and a strong education system available to all. It's obvious that in the long run China was going to surpass the US no matter what the US did. The very fact that China caught up and is now surpassing the west in every technological field is a clear indication that the rate of progress there is much faster.
Chinese corporation invest in R&D, like Americans did when it was GREAT. Now corporations invest in CEO salaries and stock buybacks.
It's more that the economy in China is largely state driven, and the state also controls the golden share in all large private companies and has people on the boards of them. China is not a capitalist country where companies get to decide how to operate. They exist to serve the interests of the nation.
Cool, now the rest of the world can steal China's tech thus completing the circle of knowledge.
China allowed capitalists to use their labor in exchange for tech transfer
this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2026
95 points (99.0% liked)
Science
21232 readers
74 users here now
Subscribe to see new publications and popular science coverage of current research on your homepage
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS