US social scientist Kei Koizumi has participated in creating US science and technology policies for years. He was an advisor to Presidents Barack Obama (2009–2017) and Joe Biden (2021–2025) and has held leadership roles in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). He also participated actively in the implementation of the Chips and Science Act, a law approved in August 2022 with the objective of strengthening the production of semiconductors and increasing federal funding in science and technology.
On July 10 and 11, Koizumi was at the FAPESP headquarters in São Paulo and at the University of Campinas (UNICAMP) to take part in the seminar Research on Research and Innovation: Indicators, Metrics, and Evidence of Impacts. Also known as the science of science, this field studies how scientific practice is produced, funded, and evaluated. The event was organized by the Laboratory for Studies on the Organization of Research & Innovation (LAB-GEOPI) at UNICAMP, in celebration of its 30th anniversary. At UNICAMP, he met with Pesquisa FAPESP to discuss his experience at the OSTP and the state of the scientific community in the US in light of federal budget cuts on research under the current administration of Donald Trump.
Do you believe that the diversity of research funding sources in the US will be able to compensate for the current reduction in federal investment?
We are about to find out. One of the strengths of the US system is its diverse and decentralized nature. In research and development in our country, the federal government provides around 25% of the funding. Companies, foundations, state and local governments, and nonprofit organizations provide the remaining 75%. It’s possible to find alternative sources for many canceled federal research projects, but this will require a lot of work. Companies and foundations are already investing in their own research and it is difficult to ask them to also take on projects that were funded by the federal government. My hope is that we are able to undo part of the damage caused by the federal courts.
Since the beginning of this year, US scientists have shown to be extremely concerned about the future of funding for their projects. What is the situation like now?
They remain concerned, and rightly so, since many subsidies are still suspended. For 2025, funding is at the same level as previous years, but the budgetary proposal for 2026 suggests a steep cut [of around US$44 billion, according to estimates in July by the American Association for the Advancement of Science – AAAS]. As it has not yet been approved by the US Congress, it continues to be just a proposal. What is most concerning, especially for researchers and students just starting out, is the uncertainty about the future. The current funding environment is not ideal for making decisions about their careers. My concern is the possibility of us losing entire generations of scientists and engineers. In September we will begin to receive data on university enrollments, particularly among international students and graduate students entering science and engineering programs. Then we will discover the full extent of the changes. I believe that the US science and engineering enterprise will not be the same after the events of this year.
You were involved in the creation of ARPA-H, an agency created to accelerate innovative research and treatments in healthcare. How is the institution doing today amid the federal research budget cuts?
Although the budget is less than we originally predicted—it is currently around US$1 billion per year, whereas we predicted that it would now be US$4 billion—the agency is funding research. The challenge is to invest in long-term projects with long-term results in a political system that rewards the short term. ARPA-H is funding research projects, but their results will only become apparent in a few years.
You participated in events in São Paulo and Campinas where studies on the science of science were presented. What caught your attention?
I was impressed with the fact that LAB-GEOPI has been operating for 30 years and that Brazil has been thinking about the problems of “research on research” for a long time. At the same time, it was amazing to discover a vibrant state-level research funding agency. I didn’t know about the funding model through which FAPESP receives revenue from the state government. I don’t know of any American state that has anything similar. I am excited about the prospect of learning from each other about science and technology policies.
What is the role of state agencies in constructing ecosystems for regional innovation? What similar experiences are there in the United States?
Regional innovation policies are important for ensuring that economic development occurs across the whole country. Economic growth in the US is unequally distributed. States such as California and New York have vibrant science and technology policies and institutions. A focus of my work was to guarantee that other states, with fewer resources, also had the capacity to drive regional innovation. That was my job in actions such as the creation and approval of the Chips and Science Act and the establishment of a new directorate at the National Science Foundation [NSF], the Directorate for Technology, Innovation and Partnerships [TIP] to work with regional innovation. Innovation is important for creating jobs and making them accessible to people across the entire country. If it occurs only on the East or West coast of the US, it will be neither sustainable nor good for the country’s economy as a whole.
You stated in your lecture, that science policy in the US has always aimed to give people access to the results of its research. How can this protect science when it is under attack?
The original motivation for making government-funded research publications immediately available to everyone was that many families of individuals affected by illnesses such as cancer and heart disease might want to learn about studies on these conditions. And, by ensuring that access, millions of Americans began to engage personally with medical research. My hope is that, by making the results of research on climate change, astronomy, or medicine available, there will be more Americans who appreciate, understand, and can use those results in their own lives.
Do Americans trust science?
The data indicate that public trust in science remains high. But the way the questions are asked is very abstract: “Do you trust science?” People generally answer yes. But there has been an erosion in how people trust the government’s use of science during pandemics, such as COVID-19. These numbers are low and are reducing. Public confidence in universities is declining. Why does this happen? Due to a combination of many factors. One is the perception that the elite research universities are out of reach of the American people, because they are expensive, and also because they are left-wing. It is in the universities that a large part of the government-funded research is done. The public perceptions about science are directly linked to perceptions about higher education.
The above interview was published with the title “Kei Koizumi: The poison of uncertainty” in issue 355 of September/2025.
Republish