In the United States, Republican control of the House or presidency has often coincided with higher federal science appropriations, say Alexandar Furnas and colleagues in a Policy Forum. They base their findings – which challenge the conventional wisdom about partisan support for science – on an analysis of decades of U.S. science- and research-related appropriations data. “Overall, our findings highlight the complexity of the relationship between political control and federal science funding,” write the authors. “[The analysis] underscores the importance of framing science funding as a bipartisan priority that advances shared societal goals, while also calling for vigilance to protect science from political interference.” The United States government – the world’s largest research funder – plays a pivotal role in advancing scientific research and technological innovation worldwide. Even so, the connection between partisan control of the U.S. government and science funding has remained murky. This oversight is made more consequential in today’s polarized climate. To address this, Furnas et al. analyzed a detailed dataset of federal appropriations to science-related accounts from 1980 to 2020. Unlike prior studies that focus primarily on grantmaking, the analysis leverages a hand-collected database of 171 appropriations accounts across 27 federal agencies associated with science or research activity, encompassing the full range of science- and research-related expenditures authorized through the annual appropriations process. These accounts include not only grants to universities and external researchers but also contracts with private firms and in-house research conducted by federal agencies.
The findings show that federal science funding is far more complex than often assumed, with grants constituting only a small fraction of total appropriations. According to the authors, much of the money flows instead to private firms through contracts or to in-house agency research, highlighting the need to look beyond grantmaking to understand the full scope of federal investment. Notably, Furnas et al. also found that, contrary to the common perception that Republicans are hostile to science, Republican control of the House or presidency has often coincided with higher levels of science appropriations across multiple agencies, often averaging hundreds of millions more per account compared with Democratic control. Importantly, the authors show that, while the scale of funding fluctuates with partisan power, the distribution of grants across scientific fields remains largely stable. However, according to Furnas et al., given growing polarization and declining trust in science among some Republican policymakers, past patterns of support are no guarantee of what lies ahead.
