The chain saw approach to medical research funding is not just reckless — it’s shortsighted. The families of the richest 2 percent also get cancer and other deadly diseases, and no amount of money can buy a cure that doesn’t exist.
Dennis E. Noonan
Wellesley
Thank you for Kara Miller’s article on the challenges of long-term research in the face of the Trump administration’s cuts (“Future shocked,” Business, July 15). Having spent many years with tech companies as a business consultant directly supporting scientists and designers, I have observed the issues Miller outlines many times over.
While only a small fraction of original ideas achieve success as envisioned, scientists consistently persevere with passion for their ideas. The research environment overall, however, brings waves of advances.
Unlike the business and dealmaking mind-set of the current administration’s so-called leaders, scientists are not self-promoters by type. They struggle for funding over years, driven by their passion for making a difference for the world.
The most telling risk inherent in the Trump cuts is the potential impact on global competition. As Miller points out, for decades some of the world’s best minds have come here, with the United States having benefited. But more recently, greater global tools and competition have prompted serious foreign competition for the best minds — and for the opportunities to control future technologies.
The administration’s cuts would put the United States more than a generation behind in our children’s and grandchildren’s future world.
Larry Kennedy
Jacksonville, Fla.
I weep when I see what the Trump administration is doing to our country and our world. Kara Miller’s article on the savaging of basic science — “research aimed at understanding rather than commercializing” — is but one example.
This type of research may have no application right away. However, over 20 or 30 years, many dozens of applications may emerge, often covering many different fields. The original development rarely occurs in business laboratories because there is no immediate payoff. It is therefore essential that government continue to fund basic science. As Miller points out, a stable flow of funding is essential for the production of a continuing stream of research results.
Disruption of the Trumpian kind has several undesirable results: Besides stopping the flow of original ideas, over the long term it will reduce our capacity to learn from and absorb ideas produced in other countries. We have seen mid-career scientists being welcomed by other countries while the paths of early-career scientists have been demolished.
American politicians, Republican and Democratic alike, must stand up to the president and say, “Basic research is the seed corn for ‘Making America Great Again.’ It must not be destroyed.” They should then act and vote accordingly in Congress.
Martin G. Evans
Cambridge
The writer is a professor emeritus at the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto.
