According to Mehr reporter; The docume, 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 governme’s approach to science in American general governance architecture. According to this approach, science is no longer regarded as a strategic capital of developme, but is considered part of the excess and ideological costs that must be removed from the body of the governme.
Science policy analysts believe that such a change in the philosophy of scieific regulation, the weakening of institutional structures of innovation, iensifying the migration of elite human capital, the decline of US iernational status in the global biography of knowledge, and ultimately, would be a long -term threat to the coury’s soft power and capacity.
Overview of the coe of the budget docume
According to the docume 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 poi is that this reduction has been implemeed in the field of scieific, research and environmeal institutions, in a more unequal and iense way.
Unprecedeed reduction of American scieific 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 Environmeal Protection Agency (EPA) with a 5 % decline.
Such figures are unprecedeed in the history of federal financing for US scieific institutions and indicate a major approach to US policymakers’ priorities; An approach to restrict institutional support for fundameal research, ierference in the path of climatic and social research, and the weakening of the governme’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 governme and the Republican majority of the House of Represeatives; An issue that could pave the way for these coroversial 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 ielligence and quaum 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 iegrate five specialized ceers to only five major areas, shows a severe coractionary policy of the Trump administration, which also expresses the coury’s structure. According to many experts, the complete elimination of iernational health and iernational research collaborations, while violating the fundameal 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 scieific decline
On the other hand, estimates indicate that organizations such as NASA, the Departme of Energy Corol and Preveion (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 scieific budget of the institution in half means NASA’s ery io a period of scieific 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 scieific 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 Investme and Employme Act, along with the elimination of climate justice projects, also emphasizes the governme’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 scieific route in environmeal risks and climate change.
The reaction of academic, research, and specialized associations to this unprecedeed decline in the state -run scieific budget has been highly alerted and at the same time analytical. The American Science Promotion Association (AAAS) stated in an official and explicit stateme that if the proposals were implemeed, not only the US scieific 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, iernational research institutes and reputable scieific journals, including “Science” and “Nature”, have also been analytical notes and editorials on the deterre effects of this budget on the coinuation of strategic projects, weakening the youth supply chain, reducing the supply chain. In the academic environme, this budget approach has been ierpreted 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 governme. This docume, by reducing the financial foundations of knowledge -producing institutions, not only disrupts American scieific developme 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 scieific 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 discourageme and elite migration, reduced iernational investme in the coury’s scieific ecosystem, and the decline of US scieific 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 ielligence, quaum computing and biotechnology is ierpreted as the new geopolitical foundation, any deliberate weakening of scieific institutions is not only a strategic mistake, but a dangerous gambling over the future of national security.
(tagstotranslate)
