US scientists have done a ¡°very poor job¡± communicating the social and economic benefits of publicly funded research, the former director of America¡¯s National Science Foundation (NSF) has argued.

Speaking at?̽»¨ÊÓƵ¡¯s World Academic Summit at King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) in Saudi Arabia, Sethuraman Panchanathan said he was disappointed by the ¡°fundamental disconnect¡± between the research community and the US public over the everyday benefits of research funding.

¡°If I take my iPhone there are at least 50,000 NSF projects who have contributed to it ¨C including the glass on the phone,¡± explained Panchanathan, a machine learning expert who led the $9 billion (?7 billion) funding agency for five years until April 2025,?when he said?it was ¡°time to pass the baton to new leadership¡±.

The NSF is one of several US funding agencies targeted by Donald Trump, whose administration has proposed a $5 billion funding cut to the basic research agency for the next fiscal year. No budget has yet been approved, with the House of Representatives arguing for a smaller funding cut of about $2 billion.

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

While not addressing the cuts directly, Panchanathan told?THE¡¯s summit that the agency and US science in general had ¡°not done a good job in establishing the tyre tracks¡± of research in terms of the high-growth companies or products supported by its outcomes.

¡°People will say ¡®you are a $9 billion (?7 billion) agency, why do you need more money?¡¯. We have to communicate the impact and say what this investment does and can do,¡± he said at the event on 7 October.

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

¡°Take Google, for instance, the NSF was one of the earliest investors in Google,¡± explained the India-born scientist on the technology giant now worth $3 trillion and which employs about 180,000 people globally.

¡°Our storytelling should be better as a funding agency,¡± he said, arguing that US science as a whole had ¡°done a very poor job of communicating and engaging¡±.

The failure to convey the importance of publicly funded research was even more disappointing given the willingness of elected politicians to speak out in favour of increased research funding.

¡°I spent a lot of time travelling with senators ¨C it¡¯s one thing having those conversations in Washington but it¡¯s another when you¡¯re out with them and they¡¯re seeing what research can do and how it can?help their areas. They are saying ¡®we want to help support and scale this¡¯,¡± he said.

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

¡°There is an underlying position, a desire to invest to achieve these outcomes. It might not be in a statement but we need to make a better job in showing how research is making a difference ¨C not just in outcomes but for cities and regions,¡± he said, noting how research initiatives in Arizona had been crucial for bringing high-quality jobs to the state.

US industry was, however, prepared to invest in basic science despite dwindling political support, he said.

¡°We received $1 billion not from government but from investors who still see the huge importance of this work.¡±

jack.grove@timeshighereducation.com