Universities are out, AI is in under new Trump plan for science funding

The White House has released a big new plan that would change how the United States pays for scientific research. The report, called 'Science: A New Golden Age,' is more than 120 pages long and was released this week. It wants to put a lot of money into artificial intelligence, robots, and partnerships between the government and private companies. Scientists across the country are reacting in very different ways — some are excited, and others are very worried.

The plan was written by Michael Kratsios, the director of the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy. He told lawmakers that the goal is to 'lay the groundwork for new methods of doing science.' The report calls itself 'the first comprehensive rethinking' of U.S. science in over 80 years. It also includes ideas like a 'golden ticket' program that would give money to risky, creative research ideas that might not get funded normally.

One of the biggest changes in the plan is moving money away from universities and toward individual scientists and private companies. Right now, the federal government sends a large amount of research funding to colleges and universities. The new plan would make it harder for universities to get that money. Some experts say this could seriously hurt scientific progress in the United States.

Victor Ambros is a Nobel Prize winner and a professor at the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School. He said the report might look good at first glance, but he believes it is 'cleverly designed to advance an agenda.' He called the plan 'a teardown' of a research system that other countries have long looked up to. His own Nobel Prize-winning research was paid for by the National Institutes of Health, a government agency that funds university-based science.

Colette Delawalla runs an advocacy group called Stand Up for Science. She said the plan treats scientific research like a business investment, looking for areas where the most money can be made. She warned that universities give researchers important tools and spaces they need to do their work. 'It's like hiring Tom Brady and then not having a stadium for him to play in and not having a football,' she said.

Scott Delaney tracks canceled science grants through a group called Grant Witness. He said the new policy clearly has winners and losers, and 'universities are losers under this policy — like full stop.' He pointed out that Massachusetts gets more federal science money per person than any other state. He also noted that the state has a strong private biotech and pharmaceutical industry that might benefit from the new plan.

The White House report also calls for a major push into artificial intelligence. The administration announced a new $5 billion commitment to bring AI into every part of the scientific process, from discovering new medicines to analyzing data collected by NASA. This effort is called the Genesis Mission. Kratsios believes AI will transform how science is done in the coming years.

Not everyone sees the report as a threat. Sam Scarpino works at Northeastern University, where he helps develop AI tools with human oversight. He said the report actually supports the kind of work he already does, partnering with companies to build and use AI. He sees the plan as a path toward a research world where both private businesses and universities can work together without one hurting the other.

Gianluca Stringhini is a professor at Boston University who receives funding from OpenAI to study cybersecurity. His work is exactly the kind of industry-university partnership the White House report promotes. But he warned that cutting basic academic research would be dangerous, comparing it to 'a house of cards' that could fall apart. He said strong industry partnerships grow out of years of academic research done first in university labs.

The full impact of the plan is still unclear. Joanne Padrón Carney of the American Association for the Advancement of Science called the report 'an untested experiment on a national scale.' She said it could produce results that are hard to predict — or cause damage that takes decades to fix. Scientists, universities, and policymakers will be watching closely to see what happens next.