Wie die Trump-Administration US-Wissenschaftler von der nächsten nobelpreiswürdigen Entdeckung ausschließen könnte
Wie die Trump-Administration US-Wissenschaftler von der nächsten nobelpreiswürdigen Entdeckung ausschließen könnte
9 Kommentare
Hi r/EverythingScience,
As you may have heard, a proposed White House rule would give Trump’s political appointees unprecedented control over deciding scientific grants and restricting international collaboration.
We talked to Prof. [David W. Miller](https://physics.uchicago.edu/people/profile/david-miller/), one of nearly 2,000 U.S. scientists who contributed to the discovery of the Higgs boson (“God particle”), about how this move would have stifled that breakthrough:
* Federal agencies invested $531 million into national labs that provided construction and other services for the project, with additional grants going to individual scientists, such as Miller.
* The reliability of that funding was key, Miller says. Right now, these grants can’t be canceled without cause. But the rule would allow termination with minimal explanation or opportunities for appeal.
* More than 60 nations contributed to the discovery. Engineers from India tested superconducting magnets; Russian scientists collected spent artillery shells; multiple countries are contributing to ongoing upgrades.
* The rule would prohibit researchers using federal funds to support collaborations with certain foreign countries, with only limited exceptions. That could shut U.S. scientists out of critical discoveries.
With this rule in place, [Miller writes](https://www.regulations.gov/comment/OMB-2026-0034-0060): “The United States will not just fall behind. It will step aside.” He’s not alone. Thousands of scientists — including Nobel Prize winners — have left public comments warning that the rule would severely curtail their research.
**Here’s the full story:** [https://www.propublica.org/article/federal-science-grants-russell-vought-omb](https://www.propublica.org/article/federal-science-grants-russell-vought-omb)
The Office of Management and Budget, the agency behind the rule, says it is necessary to prevent waste, fraud and ideological bias. A spokesperson did not provide a list of countries that might be barred from collaboration with U.S. scientists, or respond to our questions about how that provision would be enforced.
OMB wants the final version of the rule to take effect on Oct. 1.
Yeah…
So I work in a field of rare disease/condition and we need to power our clinical trials across so many different hospital systems that it usually is a global effort.
If I run a trial, our center is the lead, but we need Canada, Europe, and sometimes China involved to get sufficient sample sizes.
Those efforts will be crushed. So it’s like a giant middle finger to people with these rare conditions.
Why discover, when the Nobel belongs to Trump?
Interesting.
I think the article raises some legitimate concerns. Long-term funding stability matters, and the Higgs boson project is a great example of what decades of sustained investment and international cooperation can produce.
Where it loses me is that it assumes there’s only one possible outcome.
Changing incentives in a system this large doesn’t produce a single inevitable result. Universities, researchers, agencies, industry, philanthropies, and even foreign partners all respond to the new incentives. That’s how markets and institutions work.
The article assumes the new equilibrium is: more political oversight → less collaboration → less basic research → American scientific decline.
That’s certainly one possibility.
But it isn’t the only one. Universities may diversify funding. Industry and philanthropy may step in more aggressively. Agencies may become more disciplined about demonstrating public value. Researchers may shift toward projects with broader support or clearer practical applications. Or we may end up with a mixed equilibrium where some fields are affected much more than others.
History teaches that incentives matter because people adapt to them. Institutions don’t just stand still while the rules change.
That’s why I’m cautious about accepting the article’s conclusion as the obvious one. It analyzes one branch of the decision tree and largely ignores the other plausible equilibria that could emerge under the new incentives.
Whether you support or oppose the proposal, I think that’s the more interesting question: **What equilibrium does the new incentive structure actually produce after everyone has had time to adapt?** That’s a much harder question than simply assuming today’s system continues unchanged except with worse outcomes.
The days of the United States dominating the Nobels are probably over for good. With them will also go the wellspring of discovery that drives our economic engine.
Maga must go in its entirety. Epstein Class full transparency is key. Get on with it.
For decades, mysti-physicists have lied to the public about the physical realities of the universe.
Honestly if you are a scientist in the states why are you still here? It’s pretty easy to see that this BS won’t be over once Trump is out of office. You would be better suited to go someplace else and then America can pay top dollar for your disoveries elsewhere. Or maybe it won’t be so expensive to use in America though I doubt that.
I simply do not see us ever recovering from this within my lifetime. Between the education system and now scientific funding in institutions? No man we’re done.
There won’t be any discoveries if the best minds head for greener pastures.