According to Mehr reporter; The document, set in a stricter framework called “Skinny Budget”, although technically lacking in detail, is at the discourse carrying a clear message about radical rotation in the government’s approach to science in American general governance architecture. According to this approach, science is no longer regarded as a strategic capital of development, but is considered part of the excess and ideological costs that must be removed from the body of the government.
Science policy analysts believe that such a change in the philosophy of scientific regulation, the weakening of institutional structures of innovation, intensifying the migration of elite human capital, the decline of US international status in the global biography of knowledge, and ultimately, would be a long -term threat to the country’s soft power and capacity.
Overview of the content of the budget document
According to the document released on May 2, the Trump administration, within the framework of the proposed fiscal year budget, has proposed a 5 % decline in the federal civilian budget; But the point is that this reduction has been implemented in the field of scientific, research and environmental institutions, in a more unequal and intense way.
Unprecedented reduction of American scientific budgets
In particular, the National Foundation for Science (NSF) is reduced by 2 %, the National Institute of Health (NIH) with about 2 % and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with a 5 % decline.
Such figures are unprecedented in the history of federal financing for US scientific institutions and indicate a major approach to US policymakers’ priorities; An approach to restrict institutional support for fundamental research, interference in the path of climatic and social research, and the weakening of the government’s ability to produce public knowledge. While Congress, as the final authority of the budget approval, has not yet stated its definitive stance, but there are signs of strategic convergence between the government and the Republican majority of the House of Representatives; An issue that could pave the way for these controversial offers and to impose a deep impulse in the United States.
At the institutional level, the National Foundation, as the main supplier of basic research credits in the United States, has fallen by $ 5 billion in the annual budget.
According to estimates, this decline in climate science programs will purposefully eliminate renewable energy and social sciences. On the other hand, despite the relative preservation of research in the field of artificial intelligence and quantum science, the $ 5 million decrease in the operational budget of the National Science Foundation has exacerbated the risk of institutional dysfunction of the agency and has even overshadowed half of its employees’ survival.
The gradual collapse of biomedical
In the field of biological research, a 5 % historical decline in the National Health Institute’s budget, from $ 5 billion a year to $ 5 billion a year, with the proposal to integrate five specialized centers to only five major areas, shows a severe contractionary policy of the Trump administration, which also expresses the country’s structure. According to many experts, the complete elimination of international health and international research collaborations, while violating the fundamental principles of health justice, will undermine the global position of the National Institute of Health as the superior authority in biological research.
NASA on the path of scientific decline
On the other hand, estimates indicate that organizations such as NASA, the Department of Energy Control and Prevention (CDC) and the US Geological Survey are also affected by a sharp decline in their budget. A 5 % decline in NASA’s total budget, elimination of climate studies projects and stopping Mars exploration projects and reducing the scientific budget of the institution in half means NASA’s entry into a period of scientific decline. At the same time, the allocation of special funding to the moon and Mars missions in technological competition with China reflects the move of priorities from scientific research to promoting geopolitical competition.
In addition, a 5 % decrease in the budget of the Ministry of Energy at the Ministry of Energy and the cut of $ 5 billion in the Infrastructure of Investment and Employment Act, along with the elimination of climate justice projects, also emphasizes the government’s strict approach to abandoning climate policies. Experts also believe that eliminating $ 5 million from the Geological Survey and at least a 5 % decline in the US National Oceanic Office budget will limit its scientific route in environmental risks and climate change.
The reaction of academic, research, and specialized associations to this unprecedented decline in the state -run scientific budget has been highly alerted and at the same time analytical. The American Science Promotion Association (AAAS) stated in an official and explicit statement that if the proposals were implemented, not only the US scientific infrastructure, but also the foundations of technology -based economy, public health and strategic security will be at stake at the same time.
Reduce the motivations of the younger generation of researchers
The association described the decline of funding not merely a financial decision, but a sign of a profound attitude towards science and research at high levels of policy making. In addition, a series of leading universities, international research institutes and reputable scientific journals, including “Science” and “Nature”, have also been analytical notes and editorials on the deterrent effects of this budget on the continuation of strategic projects, weakening the youth supply chain, reducing the supply chain. In the academic environment, this budget approach has been interpreted as an implicit message from structural disregard for the status of science in modern governance; As many scholars and scholars have assessed this as a threat to the general ethics of science and the disruption of public trust in the institutions of knowledge production.
Conclusion
The proposed budget of the fiscal year 1 The Trump administration, in its essence, is considered beyond a tool for allocation of funds and should be analyzed as an ideological and reflective reflection of radical redefinition of science in the institutional order of the US government. This document, by reducing the financial foundations of knowledge -producing institutions, not only disrupts American scientific development mechanisms, but more accurately, architecturally seeking to establish an alternative model of governance in which science loses its normative and strategic status.
The effects of such an approach are not limited to the suspension of scientific projects or disruption to research programs, but in a larger dimension, they shake the foundations of US technological competition against emerging powers. Experts believe that this trend, with the implicit message of distrust of institutional science and the transfer of priorities to the field -based and ideological areas, can have a wave of discouragement and elite migration, reduced international investment in the country’s scientific ecosystem, and the decline of US scientific authority.
Although the process of finalization of the bill requires the passage of US Congress filters, the new combination of power at the legislative level has increased the likelihood of such a program being approved. At a time when mastery of emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, quantum computing and biotechnology is interpreted as the new geopolitical foundation, any deliberate weakening of scientific institutions is not only a strategic mistake, but a dangerous gambling over the future of national security.
(tagstotranslate)
Latest Passing over countries : Spain | Dominica | United Arab Emirates
RCO NEWS
