Comment of the week

Albert Einstein

Theoretical physicist

All of science is nothing more than the refinement of everyday thinking.

This week U.S. voters appear to have ended Democratic control of Congress, with Republicans now favored to win back at least the House of Representatives if not the Senate. And that could mean a bumpy ride for researchers over the next 2 years.

The results of the 8 November midterm elections will likely open the way to aggressive Republican-led investigations into how the National Institutes of Health (NIH) responded to the COVID-19 pandemic and whether a laboratory leak in China led to the catastrophe, as well as closer scrutiny of President Joe Biden’s efforts to combat climate change and keep pace with China’s push to become a technological superpower. Republican control of the House also increases the likelihood of political stalemate, precluding major new policy initiatives—such as deep cuts to federal spending or new climate regulations—by either party.

But science advocates are hopeful the partisan battles and gridlock won’t undermine the traditional bipartisan support for research funding. If they are right, the new Congress, which will begin its 2-year term in January, might come together to provide stable budgets—and perhaps even funding increases—for federal research agencies.

This week’s election didn’t generate a “red wave” that would have given Republicans the sheer numbers to roll back parts of Biden’s agenda. Instead, they are poised to regain the House by perhaps only a half-dozen seats. A runoff election next month in Georgia could determine which party runs the evenly divided Senate.

Continued Democratic control of the Senate would make it difficult for Republicans to pursue their legislative agenda. Instead, a Republican-led House might pass “messaging” bills: legislation that has no chance of becoming law but that showcases their political philosophy in advance of the 2024 presidential election. In the science arena, for example, some Republican lawmakers have talked about banning federal funding for certain kinds of research that could create more dangerous pathogens or cutting spending on environmental and climate research.

House Republicans have also promised to grill Anthony Fauci, the soon-to-retire head of NIH’s infectious disease institute, about his role in the country’s COVID-19 response, and probe whether U.S.-funded work at a research institute in Wuhan, China, played a role in sparking the pandemic. They also want to use hearings to attack the Biden administration’s efforts to move away from fossil fuels. It likely will be difficult, however, for Republicans to translate such investigations into new policy.

Whichever party ends up in control in the House and the Senate, the majorities will continue to be narrow. Science advocates hope that will help promote at least some bipartisan cooperation on research spending.

The first signs could come next week, when the current Congress tries to complete work on one massive piece of legislation that would set spending levels for all federal agencies in fiscal year 2023, which began on 1 October. (Federal agencies are now under a spending freeze that expires on 16 December, and it has been years since Congress passed individual spending bills for clusters of agencies.)

Any agreement could have lasting effects: The 2023 numbers could become the baseline for spending in each of the next two fiscal years if legislators can’t agree on funding levels and simply freeze budgets in place. “So [the 2023 spending bill] is really important,” says Matt Owens of the Association of American Universities, which represents 66 leading research institutions. And if gridlock causes Congress to grind to a halt over the next 2 years, he adds, the 2023 numbers could end up being “the high-water mark for science.”

Science groups hope for much better from the new Congress. They are pushing for the double-digit annual funding boosts for several research agencies, including the National Science Foundation (NSF), called for in a recently passed law, the CHIPS and Science Act. They’d also like to see NIH’s budget keep pace with inflation—or more. The outcome will be shaped by who ends up leading the appropriations panels in the Senate and House, a lineup that won’t be set until later this year, as well as decisions by party leaders on overall spending levels.

Science advocates are generally pleased with the likely next chair of the House science committee if Republicans take the chamber, Representative Frank Lucas (OK). Currently the panel’s top Republican, Lucas has a track record of working closely with Democrats to craft broadly bipartisan bills.

Under his leadership, the science committee is expected to look closely at how the Biden administration is implementing the myriad research provisions in the CHIPS act. (Lucas helped write it, then reluctantly voted against it after Republican leaders decided to enforce party discipline for political reasons.) Among the law’s most popular provisions—for members of both parties—are new programs to spread federal research spending to regions of the country traditionally receiving little of it and to accelerate the commercialization of basic research discoveries, creating new industries and lots of well-paying jobs.

Issues important to Lucas’s rural district are also high on his agenda, including reauthorization of a major bill governing U.S. agricultural research policy, weather programs, and the regulation of drones.

As Lucas reaches across the aisle, the retirement of the science committee’s current chair and 15-term veteran, Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson (D–TX), could mean dealing with a younger generation of Democrats on the panel. Representative Suzanne Bonamici (OR), just re-elected to her sixth 2-year term, is in line to be the panel’s top Democrat if they become the minority party. And Representative Haley Stevens (D–MI), who just won a third term and who now leads the panel’s research subcommittee, is seen as a rising star on the committee.

Oversight of climate and energy policy and research will take on a more contentious tone if Republicans take control of committees. That would certainly be the case if they flip the Senate and Senator Ted Cruz (R–TX) leapfrogs more senior members to become chair of its commerce and science committee, now led by Senator Maria Cantwell (D–WA). This past summer, Cruz stormed out of the confirmation hearing for Arati Prabhakar, Biden’s new science adviser, after she failed to agree with him that the impact of rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere is “uncertain science.”

On biomedical research, however, more comity is likely. A former Republican appropriator expects his former colleagues to continue to view NIH as the government’s crown jewel for research on conquering dread diseases. “Who wants to fight with their constituents when they come to Washington to demand the government do more to find a cure for this or that disease?” says Charlie Dent, who retired from the House in 2018 and serves on the board of Research!America, an advocacy group for biomedical research.

At the same time, Dent says, the retirement of Senator Roy Blunt (R–MO) means NIH needs a new champion in the Senate. NIH watchers also are concerned that, if Republicans take control of the Senate, Senator Rand Paul (R–KY), one of the agency’s harshest critics, will become chair of the health panel that oversees the agency.

Given the economic and fiscal struggles facing the nation, U.S. researchers shouldn’t expect to get everything they want from the new Congress, says John Culberson, a Texas Republican who chaired the House spending panel that oversees NSF and NASA before losing his House seat as part of a Democratic wave in 2018. But Culberson, now a lobbyist for Federal Science Partners, believes Republican lawmakers who are likely to occupy key positions in the next Congress “understand that increased support for basic science and space exploration are good for the economy and important to the nation. And they will fund as much science as the country—and taxpayers—can afford.”

For more information visit: https://www.science.org/content/article/research-spending-could-be-lone-bright-spot-u-s-science-after-election-sets-divided