In 1945, as the world emerged from a global war that had demonstrated the strategic importance of scientific discovery and technological innovation, Vannevar Bush, the chief of America’s wartime Office of Scientific Research and Development, published a landmark text. In Science, the Endless Frontier, he argued that government should invest heavily in basic research, confident that scientific breakthroughs would translate into economic growth, improved health, and global preeminence.That vision was fully realised in the US, ushering in a golden age of discovery. The American research university underpinned US progress in science, and that progress established the country as a global leader in innovation.But even before President Donald Trump’s second administration had launched a full-scale assault on US universities and scientific research, Bush’s 80-year-old model was showing signs of age. The model has always rested on three assumptions: that there is a linear pathway from fundamental science to socially beneficial applied technologies; that scientists, largely free from regulation, would naturally generate outcomes in the public interest; and that the government could be relied on to fund basic research. None still completely holds true.Rarely has the scientific enterprise been both as important and as vulnerable as it is now. Climate change demands urgent innovation in clean energy. AI promises to unleash both revolutionary opportunities and profound risks. And while biotechnology holds the potential to cure numerous diseases, it also raises thorny ethical questions. Moreover, these fields are advancing at a time when public trust in science has eroded, federal funding has declined, and the line between basic and applied research has become blurrier with the rise of entrepreneurial labs and more interdisciplinary research teams.This issue has grown even more urgent now that the Trump administration is determined to slash research funding, weaponise federal grantmaking powers, and place extortionate demands on universities that it disapproves of (for whatever idiosyncratic reason). The situation demands a new social compact for science, one that recognises 21st-century political and industrial realities and reimagines the relationship between research and society.Research scientists’ vulnerability to the whims of populist political leaders and movements shows that we must establish more reliable forms of support. This is especially true when it comes to work on climate change, AI, and synthetic biology. Novel approaches to biomedical research are producing new therapies for cancer, infectious diseases, and a range of other challenges to our personal and public health; but these gains could be squandered without ongoing support.Moreover, today’s political environment forces us to recognise that the loss of trust in science can be reversed only by emphasising the role of science as a civic enterprise. Knowledge is not just the property of governments, researchers, universities, or corporations; it is a public resource. Research must be subject to institutional mechanisms of accountability, not only to ensure technical rigour, but also to monitor and manage its ethical, environmental, and social impact. If cutting-edge advances in AI are governed solely by technology companies, what confidence can we have that they will serve the public good? For science to regain public trust, it must demonstrate – in tangible ways – that it serves more than shareholder interests.Science also must be better networked and distributed. Discoveries happen not only at elite universities or in federal laboratories but also in private industry, and through international collaborations, citizen-science initiatives, and digital platforms. A new social compact for science must embrace this diversity.While industry and private philanthropy need to develop a more productive relationship with government-supported initiatives, we also need more open science, shared infrastructure, and interoperable data. These are not luxuries; they are necessary for accelerating discovery, ensuring transparency, facilitating broader participation, and drawing on more of the world’s talents and resources.Equally, we must invest in people, not just programmes. The current funding regime too often marginalises early-career scientists and rewards incremental advances over bold, groundbreaking ideas. A society that is serious about discovery must be willing to place risky bets on the next generation. That means empowering scientists with portable funding, more flexible career paths, and the freedom to pursue ambitious questions. We cannot afford to waste talent by locking it into bureaucratic cycles or prolonged postdoc precarity, and we must be more tolerant of failure.By the same token, science must become more interdisciplinary. Whether in fields like AI, which cries out for stronger ethical controls and social-science perspectives, or in some biological research, where the focus can be too narrow, there is an obvious need for broader intellectual participation. Science has the unique capacity to help us better understand the complex nature of the social and physical world, but only if we let it.At its core, science must be cross-sectoral by design. The old "triple helix” of government, universities, and industry is no longer sufficient. Civic institutions, individual communities, and others from around the world must be part of the process of shaping and creating scientific agendas. Scientists should learn to listen, so that they can engage with communities not as subjects or beneficiaries, but as partners in the design and direction of research. The Covid-19 pandemic was a powerful lesson in the need to engage communities early and often. Failing that, scientific messaging will no longer be widely trusted or heeded.The challenges before us – be they pandemics, climate change, or disruptive technologies – are not just scientific; they are social, political, and ethical as well. Bush’s vision helped win the peace and build prosperity after World War II. Our task today is to craft a vision for an even more fraught world. We need a new social compact to ensure that science remains a shared frontier that is free of political influence, open to all, accountable to society, and committed to both human and planetary flourishing. — Project Syndicate
- Nicholas Dirks is President and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences.
October 04, 2025 | 12:31 AM