The White House released its fiscal year 2018 budget blueprint on March 16, proposing steep reductions across federal science agencies while boosting defense spending. The plan, often called a “skinny budget,” would cut the National Institutes of Health (NIH) by $6 billion—nearly 20% of its current funding—and eliminate the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) entirely.
The Department of Energy’s Office of Science faces a $900 million cut, also about 20%, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) would see its research programs reduced by 25%. The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) science activities would be slashed by 40%. NASA’s earth science budget would drop by 5%, with four climate-related missions canceled, including the Plankton, Aerosol, Cloud, ocean Ecosystem (PACE) program and the Orbiting Carbon-Observatory-3.
Researchers and Former Officials Push Back
Biomedical research advocates quickly voiced opposition. Benjamin Corb, speaking for the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, called the NIH cut “unacceptable” and warned it would erase years of bipartisan support for the agency, which he described as the global leader in biomedical innovation. Jason Rao, director of international affairs at the American Society for Microbiology, compared cutting research funding to “cutting the engines off an airplane that’s too heavy for takeoff,” noting that infectious diseases, climate change, and energy production are major national security threats.
Former NOAA administrator Conrad Lautenbacher, who served under President George W. Bush, said the cuts are “ill-timed” and would make it difficult for NOAA to provide the services the country needs. Rick Spinrad, a former NOAA chief scientist, warned that reduced investment would “virtually guarantee jeopardizing the safety of the American public,” citing NOAA’s role in satellite data and weather forecasting.
An unnamed senior EPA official told Science that the proposed cuts could cause the agency’s research office “to implode.”
Why the Cuts Are Happening
The reductions are partly intended to offset a proposed $54 billion increase in military spending. The NIH, which had been expected to receive a $1–2 billion boost for fiscal 2017, has been operating at 2016 levels because Congress failed to pass a complete budget. The new plan would fund the NIH at its lowest level in 15 years, according to Corb.
The DOE’s Office of Science, which supports research at 10 of the 17 national laboratories and more than 300 universities, would also lose funding for the Title 17 loan guarantee program for low-carbon energy projects and the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program, which previously aided Ford and Tesla in developing more efficient vehicles. Nuclear weapons programs, however, remain intact.
NOAA’s coastal management and “coastal resilience” programs, which help communities prepare for rising seas and severe storms, would be eliminated. The cuts would also affect external research and estuary reserves.
Legal and Political Hurdles
Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University, noted that agency-level decisions can be challenged in court, meaning the administration may need congressional action to make lasting changes. “If you cut an agency too much, all you’ve really done is hand the agency’s priorities over to the courts and litigants,” he said, questioning whether that is the intended outcome.
The budget blueprint is a starting point for negotiations; Congress will ultimately decide final appropriations. But the proposal has already sparked a broad debate about the nation’s research priorities and the balance between defense and civilian science spending.
