Tuesday, February 4, 2025

Why the National Science Foundation Matters

The Trump administration has been aggressively attacking America's science organizations and institutions since Inauguration Day, including the National Science Foundation, commonly referred to by scientists as "NSF."  They placed a freeze on funding actions for a while (since unfrozen at least temporarily by the courts), have program managers reviewing grants for keywords that suggest violation of possible executive orders, and now are threatening to layoff 25 to 50% of the NSF staff.  

The importance of the NSF for US science, workforce development, and economic growth is enormous, but not always obvious.  When the military proposes to close a base, there's often a major uproar about how that will hurt the local economy.  If the NSF were severely restricted, there would be layoffs at universities across the country, including graduate students, post-docs, and staff.  There would also be long-term ripple effects on American innovation, national security, and economic development. Based on NSF funding, next-generation scientists are developed and companies launched. 

Rather than cite numbers, I want to tell a story of the importance of the NSF for my students and I and how this has provided tangible benefits for our nation.  In 1988 I walked into my undergraduate advisor's office at Penn State to discuss what classes I should take to finish my bachelor's degree in meteorology.  He asked me what I was going to do when I graduated and I said I had no idea.  He looked over my grades and said that I should go to graduate school.  I had never considered this before.  My father was a huge supporter of my education, but he went to community college and then night school for 7 years to earn his bachelors degree.  I figured a bachelors degree was enough and graduate school would be expensive.  I said this to my advisor and he said to me that I could get paid to go to graduate school.  That meeting changed my life.

I ended up going to graduate school with support for my graduate research assistantship coming from National Science Foundation grants.  I would not have earned a Ph.D. without that support and I never would have had the opportunity to collaborate with scientists from across the country and around the world.  

In graduate school I began to work with an atmospheric modeling system called the MM5.  Many people smarter than me at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (supported by NSF) and Penn State (supported by NSF and other agencies) developed the MM5, but there weren't that many people using it because it took a lot of compute horsepower and thus was run primarily on expensive supercomputers.  However, desktop computing was getting cheaper, so we began to work to run the MM5 in "real time" on relatively cheap desktop computers.  We also formed an online user group, something that you would take for granted today, but was new at the time.  We also began to run real-time forecasts and post the results on the internet with access through a browser called Mosaic, one of the first web browsers which was released in 1993.  Eventually the MM5 was replaced by the WRF and over time this community grew to literally thousands of scientists, all sharing ideas, code, etc.  The WRF model today is widely used not just for research, but also by insurance companies, energy companies, forecasting companies, etc.  You see forecasts produced by the WRF on TV and don't even know it.  It is also used by the Air Force for battlefield forecasting.  It takes a village to do science like this and that village was supported by NSF.  One of my fellow graduate students formed one of the first renewable energy forecasting companies and used the WRF in their forecast systems.  

Eventually I joined the faculty at the University of Utah.  I have had continuous funding from the NSF through a total of 12 grants over the past 30 years.  Some of these grants have been research focused, others education focused.  With NSF support, we have brought mobile radars to Utah to give students hands on instruction in how to operate and use a scanning radar.  If you don't think this is important, just wait a few years because the radar revolution is coming.  Costs are dropping and private industry is now installing gap filling radars across the country.  Utah has some big radar gaps.  Those will be filled in the coming years to help with road weather forecasting and estimating snowpack accumulation for water resource management.  Oh yeah, and flash flood and other severe weather forecasts will get better. 

Many of my graduate students have been supported in full or in part by NSF funding.  Sure they did some good science along the way, but look what they are doing today for our Nation's economy and security. Weather affects 1/3 of the US economy.  I have former students working for companies like Amazon Prime Air, Vaisala, Spire, and Maxar.  Others are in the insurance industry (you think they care about hurricanes and wildfires?).  Others have started their own businesses.  I've had several Air Force officers who have earned their M.S. or Ph.Ds in my group, often working on projects that are supported by NSF.  As Sun Tzu wrote, "'Know the enemy, know yourself; your victory will never be endangered. Know the ground, know the weather; your victory will then be total."  These former students are building the new economy and protecting our nation.  

Support for NSF and the remarkable people that work at it is not an expense.  It is an investment.  An investment that fosters innovation, economic growth, and national security.  Burn it down at the country's peril. 

Any opinions or views expressed in this article and on this web site are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the University of Utah or National Science Foundation.  They were prepared on a Tuesday night, during non-work hours, on my personal computer.

This article was updated to indicate that the National Center for Atmospheric Research contributed to the development of the MM5, not the National Science Foundation as mistyped (although the National Science Foundation supports the National Center for Atmospheric Research).

27 comments:

  1. High profile misinformation and just bad science on nutrition, covid, and climate has led to a huge loss of public confidence. A backlash has arrived and deservedly so.

    Contrarian scientific views on nutrition, covid, and climate were systematically censored and marginalized, yet many have proven valid. Science has nuance and unknowns and no room for censorship.

    Regular scientists like me and you will be in crosshairs for sins we did not commit.

    Hopefully, sanity will prevail and we will be better moving forward.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If by “systematically censored”, you mean found to be not valid, and in many cases exposed as laughable bullshit peddled for click money, then you’re on to something…..

      Delete
  2. We definitely need to cut wasteful spending (as well as deal with a lot of other issues as alluded to already), but I am concerned that there will be collateral damage to some actually useful and beneficial positions and programs as are many in the atmospheric sciences. Of course people are going to disagree on exactly what these are and that is the world we live in, but having the kind of debt we do as a country is a huge liability and that itself is a threat to basically everything we see fit to spend money on. The math on our debt and fiscal situation is really, really bad and there is no getting around that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, but heaven forbid ask the front row of ultra rich at the inauguration to help pay for any of that! Is cutting worthwhile programs really the only solution in people's minds? If you own billions in stock and have it for a year, you don't have to pay one cent in taxes on that. Its pretty clear who is favored in this system and it isn't the people on Social Security, Medicare, or collecting NSF grants.

      Delete
    2. I am all for cutting programs that are not worth having. Obviously we agree that some are worth keeping, so we have to prioritize. I am 100% serious that our national budget needs to balance, the end game of what we have been doing for decades isn’t good.

      Delete
  3. The majority of Americans (see November election results) understand that higher education, NGOs, and 'science' groups across the board have been taken hostage by a combination of bureaucracy and a doom loop of funds/grants that turn into kickbacks for politicians.

    The veil was lifted during the pandemic when we saw all of the above mentioned entities take part in intentional dis/misinformation campaigns that ultimately harmed Americans. The only way for these institutions to survive will be to raze the the fraudulent ones, make severe cuts in the mostly fraudulent ones, and conduct thorough audits of staff/recipients of the rest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So much wrong here but let’s start with the first four words: “The majority of Americans”. Trump received less than 50% of the popular votes. Look it up. And then you can research the rest of your misstatements.

      Great article and thanks for sharing your perspective. Keep up the amazing work. And thanks for your courage to publicly share your thoughts and experiences.

      Delete
    2. Except that all the currently funded projects are law. They were approved by congressional budgeting and signed by the president. To stop the funds being dispersed would be breaking the law. I know the right wing thinks its “projects” are more important than laws, but that leads to something wholly un American, and we all lose in the end in that scenario.

      Thanks for the perspective. Should also remind readers that the annual budget for NSF is 9 to 10 billion. An F-22 is 0.35 billion. A single new destroyer class vessel is 2.5 billion.

      Delete
    3. Meteorology in particular is such a tiny part of the federal budget, and (arguably) one of the most defendable in terms of the mandate to protect and serve the public interest. So I would argue in favor of maintaining that type of funding. Not to get too far into the weeds, but Congress doesn’t really pass a budget anymore, only last minute resolutions to keep funding going, which is divided into broad categories. It is unelected people who largely decide the specifics. And, I think most people who do their own budget would understand that a continually non balancing budget doesn’t really count as one. It has to balance with income (revenue) to be legit.

      Delete
    4. The US government is not your household. Its budget is different. To say passed budgets, even CR’s, are not legit because they don’t “balance” is childish and not serious.

      NSF is a tiny fraction of the budget and provides huge benefits to the physical and intellectual well being of Americans. You know, the people the founding fathers created our government for.

      Delete
    5. I'm the original commenter: to the first person, here's some knowledge for you:

      Democratic Kamala Harris Tim Walz 226 42% 75,019,230 48.34%

      Republican Donald J. Trump J.D. Vance 312 58% 77,303,568 49.81%

      Delete
    6. Exactly. More people voted against Donald Trump than for him.

      Delete
    7. I don't like Trump, but claiming that 0.2% points away from 50% means that the majority of the country doesn't support him is a joke. We are a republic anyways, not a democracy. By that metric, the country overwhelmingly supports Trump. He was given a mandate and he is acting on it. For the record, I voted Libertarian, but I did not vote "against Trump". Dems that keep screeching into '25, '26, and beyond with nonsense will only help him gain in the future. It's like the video of Chuck Schumer and Maxine Waters from 2 days ago holding hands chanting, "we will win" during a protest. You lost. Bigly! Now come up with a plan to counter it or keep screeching and watch the Dem party wither away.

      Delete
    8. I believe thet when one votes, the voter is either voting for or against. I voted for someone other that Trump as yourself. So, I voted for that person and by default against Trump. ...just like you my friend.

      Delete
    9. Usually post from a device with a real keyboard. Meant ... I voted for someone other than Trump ...

      Delete
    10. Again. Of all the people who voted. The majority of them voted for a candidate other than Donald Trump. That is, most of them said NO to Trump and YES to another candidate of their choice. How is that a "mandate"???

      Delete
  4. Outstanding story & article. Thanks Jim

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thank you! I also benefitted from NSF funding as a grad student and also throughout my career at government research facilities. Civil servants are not the deep state. I did not know nor did I care what the political affiliations of my colleagues were. We were all working together on science and innovation for the good of OUR country... not Donald Trump's country or Elon Musk's country.

    ReplyDelete
  6. " If the NSF were severely restricted, there would be layoffs at universities across the country, including graduate students, post-docs, and staff. "

    This is what I voted for!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A vote cast in and for ignorance is a lamentable one indeed

      Delete
    2. Yeah, who needs education anyway!

      Delete
    3. Congratulations. You're in a cult.

      Delete
  7. Science is a rewarding and consuming career. Most scientists just want to focus on their work and personal lives. Though subverting the NSF was unsuccessful, and probably a sideshow anyway, it should be a wake up call to organize into a collective voice.

    We live in a technological society where most of the population no longer understands the process of science: how basic research that seems useless today becomes foundational tomorrow; how theory evolves and sometimes replaces itself; how it depends on open systems of sharing and criticism.

    Our labs and fields have never been shielded from politics. But we’ve passed an inflection point. We owe it to our mentors and students to get involved.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thank you for this. As a fellow researcher at the U, me & my colleagues are also very worried about the impact that this will have on the scientific advances that have put our country in the position of leadership that it's in. As you've posted about before, there are obvious issues with the current system, like admins taking too fat of a cut of the federal money that should be demoted to research. And some commenters have taken issue with censorship of unpopular points of view, which I'm sure is an issue in some cases. However, it's plainly hypocritical to think that government censorship of certain keywords in public research (as the latest executive orders seek to do) will do anything to help unpopular opinions be heard. And thinking that defunding scientists will somehow fix issues with the scientific system is even more obviously untrue; yet another reductionist "it has problems so make it go away" POV a la the defund the police movement. I'm hoping this is political posturing that blows over, as a real reduction in NSF funding would have far-reaching consequences affecting our country's international competitiveness for the next century.

    ReplyDelete
  9. To those saying cuts to things like the NSF is necessary, here are some actual numbers for you. Approximately 73% of the federal government's annual budget is classified as "mandatory" spending, meaning it is not specifically written into law each year, it happens automatically. Of that, about 81% is for social security and Medicare/Medicaid. Of the remaining 27% that is not mandatory, nearly half of that is spent on the military. In other words, about 3/4 of all government spending goes either to the military, social security, or Medicare/Medicaid. Everything else comes out of the remaining 25%. Cutting the NSF, or USAID, or other programs serve no purpose other than to harm the country. They are not solutions to "balancing the budget". The NSF is 0.15% of the annual budget, equivalent to saving $75 a year on a $50,000 salary.

    ReplyDelete