A New Golden Age — What the White House’s Research Overhaul Means for Tech Transfer with Jeffrey Mervis
The way the federal government supports scientific research could be headed for a significant shift. A new White House report, *Science: A New Golden Age*, lays out a different vision for federal research funding—one that places less emphasis on the traditional university-centered grant model and more on mission-driven research, commercialization, and fields such as AI, quantum science, fusion, semiconductors, space, and robotics. For universities and technology transfer offices, those changes raise some big questions about research funding, peer review, indirect costs, and the infrastructure that supports moving discoveries from the lab into the marketplace.
Today, we are joined by Jeffrey Mervis, a veteran science policy reporter for Science who has spent more than three decades covering the intersection of science and government. His reporting has taken him across five continents, and since joining Science in 1993, he has closely followed federal research policy, science education, and the changing scientific workforce.
We talk with Jeff about what the White House report is actually proposing, why universities may have reason to pay close attention, and how ideas such as regranting and alternatives to traditional peer review could change the way federal research dollars are awarded. We also look at the push toward faster commercialization, the potential impact of cuts to grants and indirect-cost support, and what technology transfer professionals should be watching as agencies begin translating these priorities into budgets and funding decisions.
In This Episode:
[01:49] Jeffrey Mervis explains the origins of Science: A New Golden Age, how it draws on Vannevar Bush’s landmark vision for postwar science, and why the report was released just before a House Science Committee hearing.
[04:33] The timing of the report’s release and how it fits with executive orders and other actions the administration has already taken on research funding and universities are discussed.
[07:24] The report’s call to prioritize individual scientists over legacy institutions is examined, along with why separating researchers from the university infrastructure that supports their work may be difficult in practice.
[10:28] The push to direct more federal funding toward grand challenges and mission-driven research rather than relying primarily on the traditional investigator-led grant model is explained.
[13:41] The administration’s concerns about university indirect costs are discussed, along with why changing how research overhead is funded could have broad consequences for institutions.
[16:56] The conversation explores how the administration could redirect existing research dollars toward its priorities even when Congress does not support the major budget cuts it has proposed.
[19:53] The concept of regranting is explored, including how federal grant recipients could redistribute funding to individuals or organizations that may not have the infrastructure to compete directly for federal awards.
[22:46] The risk that reduced indirect-cost support and changing funding models could place pressure on university laboratories, shared facilities, compliance operations, and technology transfer offices is discussed.
[25:53] Concerns that changes to federal grantmaking could give political appointees greater influence over which research receives funding are examined.
[28:59] The conversation explains how political oversight could affect the traditional peer-review process at multiple stages, from the initial screening of proposals through decisions to terminate grants that have already been awarded.
[32:00] The administration’s emphasis on fields such as AI, quantum science, fusion, space, semiconductors, and robotics is discussed, along with what that shift could mean for institutions with large biomedical and life sciences portfolios.
[35:28] The tension between accelerating technology development and commercialization and maintaining the long-term fundamental research that makes those advances possible is considered.
[38:45] The conversation explains how priorities are likely to appear in the fiscal year 2028 budget process as federal agencies begin translating the administration’s broader vision into funding requests.
[41:32] Proposals involving national laboratories, industry partnerships, SBIR, and STTR are discussed, including whether those changes are likely to significantly alter how university technology transfer offices operate.
[43:55] University funding, grant levels, and indirect-cost support are identified as the issues technology transfer professionals should watch most closely over the coming months.
[45:11] The episode closes with where technology transfer and research professionals should look for signs of what comes next, including agency solicitations, funding announcements, and changes involving cost sharing.
Resources:
White House Report Calls For Big Changes To ‘Calcified’ U.S. Science System
Trump Adviser’s Golden Age Report On U.S. Science Is A Missed Opportunity, Critics Say
Science a New Golden Age - White House Report
Mais episódios de "AUTM on the Air"
Não percas um episódio de “AUTM on the Air” e subscrevê-lo na aplicação GetPodcast.
