top of page
Search

A Scientific State of the Union: Breakthroughs, Policy Realignments, and Strategic Challenges in the American Research Enterprise

Scientific icons, gears, and scales around a "Policy" document overlaid on a Capitol silhouette. Earth globe with network and lock icon.

Introduction: The Dichotomy of American Research in 2026

The scientific ecosystem of the United States in 2026 is defined by a profound and complex dichotomy. On one side of the ledger, the nation is witnessing an era of unprecedented technological maturation and scientific breakthroughs. Innovations in artificial intelligence, fault-tolerant quantum computing, next-generation biotechnology, and advanced materials have moved from theoretical frameworks and early-stage prototypes into applied, real-world deployments. The frontier of human knowledge is expanding at an accelerated pace, driven by robust public-private partnerships, cross-disciplinary collaborations, and the accumulated momentum of decades of foundational basic research. The American scientific engine continues to produce discoveries that fundamentally alter our understanding of computation, human health, and the physical universe.

On the other side of the ledger, the structural, financial, and administrative foundations that support this vast scientific enterprise are experiencing historically unprecedented pressure. Sweeping federal policy changes, drastic budget realignments, and a historically significant exodus of scientific talent from government agencies have created a highly volatile environment for researchers, academic institutions, and peer-review systems. The transition from a period of broad, unconstrained basic research expansion to an era of hyper-focused, national-security-oriented technological development has left many sectors of the scientific community struggling to adapt. Executive branch directives and legislative bodies have fundamentally reshaped the science landscape through targeted, high-profile initiatives while simultaneously proposing deep funding cuts to legacy programs in environmental science, basic physics, and space exploration.

Furthermore, the United States is engaged in an intensifying geopolitical race, primarily with the People's Republic of China, over global leadership in critical and emerging technologies. This competition is no longer merely theoretical; it is reflected in global research output, patent filings, and the restructuring of international research collaborations.

This comprehensive report evaluates the current state of the American scientific enterprise. It begins by detailing the most significant scientific discoveries and technological advancements that have recently emerged. It then analyzes how federal policy and budget changes are fundamentally restructuring the research landscape, examines the global innovation race and shifting geopolitical dynamics, and outlines the cascading systemic challenges—from workforce depletion to the artificial intelligence-driven academic publishing crisis—that the scientific community must navigate in the coming year.

Part I: The Frontier of Discovery and Technological Advancements

Despite the administrative and financial headwinds facing the broader research community, the sheer momentum of the American scientific engine has yielded remarkable discoveries across several critical domains in 2025 and 2026. These years have been defined by the maturation of technologies that were previously considered experimental, particularly in the realms of quantum information science, artificial intelligence, and new approach methodologies in biotechnology.

The Quantum Leap: Achieving Algorithmic Fault Tolerance

For the past decade, quantum computing has been largely confined to the Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum era, where hardware limitations, environmental decoherence, and high error rates restricted practical applications to highly specific, controlled experiments. However, late 2025 and early 2026 marked a definitive turning point toward algorithmic fault tolerance and logical qubit stability, driven predominantly by United States research teams, universities, and private enterprises.

A critical bottleneck in the scaling of quantum computing has always been the immense physical overhead required for quantum error correction. Traditional models required thousands of physical qubits to sustain a single, stable logical qubit. Recently, collaborative research between QuEra scientists, Harvard University, and Yale University introduced a groundbreaking framework for Transversal Algorithmic Fault Tolerance. This framework proved that each logical layer of an algorithm can be executed with a single error-checking round rather than dozens, effectively reducing the runtime cost of error correction and enabling fault-tolerant algorithms to execute ten to one hundred times faster.1 Furthermore, this collaborative team achieved the first logical magic state distillation, a complex and highly sought-after prerequisite for running universal algorithms beyond mere proofs of concept.1

Simultaneously, IBM advanced its fault-tolerant modular architecture based on the novel "bivariate bicycle code".2 This gross code allows the highly efficient encoding of 12 logical qubits into 144 physical data qubits, accompanied by an additional 144 syndrome check qubits. This dense packing of quantum information, combined with newly developed L-couplers that enable long-range connections between qubits on separate chips, provides a viable and scalable pathway for constructing modular quantum supercomputers.2

Hardware fidelity also reached historic benchmarks at the individual qubit level. IonQ established a new world record by demonstrating a two-qubit gate performance fidelity exceeding 99.99 percent, crossing the highly coveted "four-nines" benchmark using its proprietary Electronic Qubit Control technology.3 Because two-qubit gate fidelity measures the accuracy of quantum operations, achieving this level of precision dramatically reduces the number of initial errors that must be corrected by overhead systems. This breakthrough allows for a ten billion-fold performance increase over previous standards on devices of the same size, placing the hardware on a realistic trajectory to scale to millions of qubits by the year 2030.3

Further supplementing these corporate milestones are significant academic discoveries regarding the physical nature of qubits themselves. The University of Basel demonstrated hole spin qubits, which utilize the spins of missing electrons in semiconductors and require far fewer components than traditional electron spin qubits.4 University College Dublin researchers advanced the theoretical use of "split-electrons," or Majorana fermions, as highly stable topological qubits.4 Additionally, Brookhaven National Laboratory utilized constriction junctions to simplify quantum chip fabrication, enabling future mass production, while Ephos introduced the use of glass chips instead of silicon to significantly reduce energy consumption and information loss.4

Table 1 summarizes the recent milestones in quantum computing that have reshaped the technological landscape.

Table 1: Key Quantum Computing Breakthroughs and Milestones (2025-2026)


Organization / Collaboration

Breakthrough

Scientific Significance

QuEra, Harvard, Yale

Transversal Algorithmic Fault Tolerance

Reduces error correction runtime overhead, accelerating algorithms by a factor of 10 to 100.1

QuEra

Logical Magic State Distillation

Achieves a fundamental prerequisite for running universal, complex algorithms beyond simple proofs of concept.1

IBM

Bivariate Bicycle "Gross" Code

Encodes 12 logical qubits into 144 data qubits, optimizing the physical overhead required for error correction.2

IonQ

99.99 Percent Two-Qubit Gate Fidelity

Sets a world record in operational accuracy, drastically reducing the need for extensive error correction scaling.3

University of Basel

Hole Spin Qubits

Utilizes missing electron spins in semiconductors, requiring fewer components than traditional spin qubits.4

Brookhaven National Laboratory

Constriction Junctions

Simplifies quantum chip fabrication processes, paving the way for scalable mass production.4

Artificial Intelligence Integration and the Genesis Mission

Artificial intelligence has fully transitioned from an isolated computer science discipline into the foundational infrastructure of all scientific inquiry. Recognizing this paradigm shift, the federal government has launched highly coordinated, interagency efforts to integrate AI into national security, advanced energy generation, and fundamental scientific discovery.

The most prominent of these efforts is the Genesis Mission, established via executive order by the current administration. Led by the United States Department of Energy and its network of 17 National Laboratories, the Genesis Mission is designed to build the world's most powerful integrated scientific platform.5 By connecting the world's best supercomputers, advanced experimental facilities, and unique datasets with cutting-edge AI systems, the mission aims to double the productivity and impact of American research and development within a decade.5 To achieve this, the mission pairs scientists with intelligent systems capable of reasoning, simulating, and experimenting at unprecedented speeds.

The Genesis Mission is supported by a formidable coalition of private collaborators, including Anthropic, NVIDIA, OpenAI for Government, IBM, Microsoft, AMD, Amazon Web Services, Google, and Oracle.5 The Department of Energy has identified 26 specific science and technology challenges for this mission. These include harnessing and digitizing eight decades of historical nuclear research to create secure, searchable databases; reenvisioning advanced manufacturing to bridge research and production loops via AI-driven supply chain management; discovering new quantum algorithms for logistics; and scaling the national power grid with AI to enable operational decisions up to 100 times faster, thereby improving electricity reliability by up to 10 percent.7 The initiative also focuses heavily on advanced nuclear capabilities, utilizing AI to optimize reactor design, licensing, and operations, enabling a twofold schedule acceleration and massive operational cost reductions.5

Concurrently, the National Science Foundation has heavily invested in democratizing access to artificial intelligence infrastructure for the broader academic community. In 2025, the agency strengthened the National Artificial Intelligence Research Resource pilot, successfully connecting over 600 domestic research teams to a shared national AI infrastructure.9 This pilot bridges the gap for researchers and educators who previously lacked the immense computational resources required to train complex models. The program is divided into four operational pillars: NAIRR for Research (providing supercomputing allocations and datasets), NAIRR Secure (co-led by the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Energy to support privacy-preserving healthcare and security research), NAIRR Software and Data (facilitating interoperable tools), and NAIRR Classroom (focusing on workforce training and outreach).9 To solidify this initiative, the National Science Foundation initiated the NAIRR Operations Center, backed by 14 federal agencies and 28 private-sector partners, to guide the transition from a pilot program into a permanent, scalable national infrastructure.9

Furthermore, the National Science Foundation established the Tech Labs and Tech Accelerators initiatives. These novel programs are designed to launch independent, autonomous research organizations that operate entirely outside of traditional academic silos or corporate structures.9 Funded through milestone-based mechanisms rather than traditional, periodic grant cycles, these interdisciplinary teams are granted the financial runway and operational freedom to address deep technical bottlenecks at breakneck speeds. The ultimate goal is to translate early scientific concepts directly into commercially viable platforms ready for private investment, essentially engineering the creation of entirely new technology sectors.10

Next-Generation Biotechnology and New Approach Methodologies

The biomedical sciences are currently undergoing a regulatory and technological paradigm shift driven by advancements in cell-free biology and human-relevant modeling. For nearly a century, mammalian animal models have served as the foundational gold standard for preclinical drug safety, toxicity, and efficacy testing. However, physiological and genetic differences between species have frequently led to a high attrition rate, where drugs that succeed in animal trials ultimately fail in human clinical trials due to unpredicted toxicities or lack of efficacy.

To address this persistent inefficiency, the United States Food and Drug Administration, bolstered by the legislative mandates of the FDA Modernization Acts 2.0 and 3.0, announced a comprehensive, step-by-step plan to phase out animal testing requirements for monoclonal antibodies and other pharmaceutical drugs.11 The agency is actively shifting its regulatory incentives toward New Approach Methodologies. These methodologies encompass a wide range of modern scientific techniques, including AI-based computational toxicity models, laboratory-grown human organoids, and organ-on-a-chip microphysiological systems.12

Organ-on-a-chip technologies represent a particularly significant breakthrough. These are advanced microfluidic devices lined with living human cells that mimic the complex structural and functional characteristics of human organs, such as the liver, heart, kidneys, and lungs. The National Institutes of Health, operating primarily through its National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, has heavily funded the Tissue Chip for Drug Screening program to accelerate the validation and standardization of these tools.14 When paired with advanced biosensors and integrated into a "human body-on-a-chip" configuration, these devices provide a direct, highly accurate window into human physiological responses, identifying subtle toxic effects that might easily go undetected in traditional animal models.12

This shift is part of a globally coordinated effort toward modernizing regulatory science. The United States Environmental Protection Agency has formally committed to phasing out animal testing by the year 2035, while the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods aims to eliminate all mammalian testing in the United States by the same target year.13 The United Kingdom government and the European Medicines Agency have announced similar alignments, recognizing that New Approach Methodologies can speed up the drug development process and reduce costs without compromising patient safety.16

While a gap remains between preclinical promise and widespread clinical validation—notably, a lack of randomized controlled trials reporting clinical outcomes exclusively using organoids—early validation studies are highly promising. For instance, a recent trial involving advanced gastric and colorectal cancer patients demonstrated an 87 percent concordance rate between organoid drug sensitivity testing and actual clinical patient responses.17 As the Government Accountability Office noted in a recent assessment, scaling these human organ-on-a-chip technologies from promise to standardized regulatory practice remains a challenge, but the trajectory toward human-relevant testing is clear.13

Sustainability, Advanced Materials, and the Top Emerging Technologies

Beyond quantum computing, artificial intelligence, and biotechnology, 2025 and 2026 have seen rapid advancements in materials science and sustainability. The World Economic Forum's evaluation of the top emerging technologies highlights a growing trend of technology convergence, where combinations of novel materials and biological systems are advancing clean energy and public health.18

Key breakthroughs include the development of Structural Battery Composites. Unlike traditional solid lithium-ion batteries that require dedicated space and add significant weight to vehicles or devices, structural battery composites utilize weight-bearing materials—such as specially engineered carbon fiber or epoxy resins—that concurrently store electrical energy.18 This dual-functionality has the potential to radically reduce the weight of electric vehicles and aerospace components, extending range and improving energy efficiency.

Other notable trends gaining commercial traction include hybrid solar cells that expand small-scale renewable energy systems, targeted sodium channel drugs that promise opioid-free pain relief, and AI-guided biomarker discoveries that are rapidly advancing personalized cancer treatment options.19 In the agricultural sector, CRISPR-edited agriculture is unlocking drought-tolerant crops critical for ensuring global food security in the face of changing climate patterns, while the integration of Internet of Things sensors and smart coatings is enabling the development of self-healing infrastructure.19

Table 2 highlights the most impactful emerging technologies defining the current scientific landscape.

Table 2: Top Emerging Technology Trends (2025-2026)


Technology Area

Scientific Description and Impact

Structural Battery Composites

Weight-bearing materials (e.g., carbon fiber) capable of storing electrical energy, reducing weight and space requirements in electric vehicles.18

Targeted Sodium Channel Drugs

Precision pharmaceuticals that block specific pain pathways, offering highly effective opioid-free pain relief.19

CRISPR-Edited Agriculture

Precision gene editing deployed to create resilient, drought-tolerant crop varieties to bolster food security.19

Cell-Free Biomanufacturing

Biological synthesis without living cells, enabling rapid, point-of-care diagnostic tools and decentralized medicine production.19

Self-Healing Infrastructure

Integration of IoT sensors and smart chemical coatings that autonomously detect and repair structural micro-fractures.19

Part II: The Reshaping of the Federal Science Landscape

While the technological capabilities of the United States expand, the political, economic, and administrative frameworks governing American science are undergoing radical and frequently disruptive restructuring. The federal government has initiated severe budget realignments, prioritizing specific emerging technologies—such as those tied to national security and artificial intelligence—while systematically dismantling broad swathes of legacy research programs across multiple agencies.

The CHIPS and Science Act Funding Gap and Budget Realignments

The CHIPS and Science Act of 2022 was originally celebrated as a generational, bipartisan investment designed to revitalize the American innovation ecosystem. The legislation authorized roughly 280 billion dollars in new spending, with significant portions dedicated to onshoring semiconductor manufacturing capabilities. Crucially, the act also authorized 174 billion dollars specifically for basic and applied research to support the nation's innovation pipeline, primarily targeting the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.20

However, the reality of fiscal appropriations in 2025 and 2026 has starkly contrasted with these bold authorizations. A massive and growing funding gap has emerged, severely stunting the intended revitalization of fundamental science. As of early 2026, the aggregate shortfall for the core research agencies has surpassed 8 billion dollars compared to the targets set by the CHIPS Act authorizations.22 The National Science Foundation is experiencing the largest gap, primarily due to the strictures of recent fiscal responsibility acts, shifting legislative priorities, and a broader environment of fiscal consolidation aimed at reducing large federal deficits.22

The fiscal year 2026 budget request proposed by the current administration exacerbates this trend, reflecting a strategy of deep consolidation and reprioritization. The National Science Foundation faces a proposed 57 percent topline cut.24 To accommodate this severely constrained fiscal environment, the agency plans to dramatically reduce its footprint in fundamental physics, environmental research, and astronomy.

The breakdown of these proposed cuts reveals a deliberate shift away from climate and clean energy research. The United States Global Change Research Program is slated for a 96.7 percent reduction, stripping nearly 746 million dollars from the program.24 Similarly, Clean Energy Technology funding at the National Science Foundation faces a proposed 99.2 percent cut, virtually eliminating its operational capacity.24 In the realm of large-scale physics, the agency proposes operating only one of the two existing Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory sites, cutting support for the Large Hadron Collider to 60 percent of current levels, and halting funding for the final design phase of the Thirty Meter Telescope.24 Consequently, the total number of competitive grant awards distributed by the agency is projected to plummet from approximately 9,600 down to 2,300, driving the proposal acceptance rate down to a historic low of 7 percent.24

Despite these sweeping cuts to legacy and fundamental science programs, funding has been surgically protected—and in some cases increased—for highly specific, defense-adjacent technologies. Artificial intelligence and quantum information science remain the only crosscutting research areas protected from major cuts at the National Science Foundation, receiving specific allocations of 655.23 million dollars and 231.15 million dollars, respectively.24 Additionally, major facility construction budgets saw slight increases, heavily favoring high-performance computing centers such as the planned Leadership-Class Computing Facility at the University of Texas at Austin.24

Table 3 details the drastic budget realignments proposed for the National Science Foundation in fiscal year 2026.

Table 3: Proposed National Science Foundation Budget Realignments (FY 2026)


Program / Research Area

Proposed Action / Cut

Impact on Scientific Capability

Overall NSF Topline

57 percent reduction

Competitive grant awards drop from 9,600 to 2,300; acceptance rate falls to 7 percent.24

US Global Change Research

96.7 percent reduction

Strips $746 million across multiple directorates, effectively halting climate research initiatives.24

Clean Energy Technology

99.2 percent reduction

Eliminates nearly $435 million, heavily impacting the Directorate for Engineering.24

Large Hadron Collider (LHC)

Reduced to 60 percent funding

Diminishes US researcher participation in global high-energy physics experiments.24

Thirty Meter Telescope

Funding halted

Project will not advance to the final design phase under NSF support.24

AI and Quantum Science

Protected / Prioritized

Receives $655M and $231M respectively; the only crosscutting areas shielded from cuts.24

The Contraction of Space Exploration and Earth Observation

The austerity measures proposed in the 2026 federal budget extend deep into the nation's space and atmospheric programs. NASA faces a proposed 47 percent cut to its science programs compared to fiscal year 2024 operating plan levels.24 This massive reduction requires a fundamental reshaping of the agency's operational scientific portfolio.

Specific program cuts within NASA are profound: the Biological and Physical Sciences directorate faces a proposed 71 percent cut, while the Astrophysics division is slated for a 66 percent reduction.24 To achieve what the administration terms a "leaner, more focused science program," NASA has proposed eliminating over 40 lower-priority missions, including 19 active, healthy science missions that are currently in orbit and returning highly valuable scientific data.24

Among the high-profile casualties of this budget request is the Mars Sample Return mission, a complex astrobiology initiative designed to robotically retrieve Martian soil samples for advanced laboratory analysis on Earth.24 Furthermore, the Chandra X-ray Observatory, which has provided unparalleled high-energy astrophysics observation since 1999, is slated for cancellation, alongside the HelioSwarm solar observation satellites.24 Earth observation capabilities are also heavily impacted, with missions such as the Aura satellite, the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO-2), and the Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment III facing termination.25 Furthermore, deep space probes such as the New Horizons spacecraft, which provided the first up-close images of Pluto and continues to explore the Kuiper Belt, may be forced to abandon their extended observational missions.27

Alongside these mission cancellations, the administration has proposed eliminating the entire STEM Engagement directorate at NASA, signaling a shift away from federal involvement in primary educational outreach.24 Similar steep cuts have been proposed for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, with legislative attempts to rescind billions of dollars in previously appropriated, unobligated funds intended for climate resilience and climate research under the Inflation Reduction Act.24

The MAHA Initiative and the Paradigm Shift in Public Health

Beyond raw budget numbers and funding gaps, the fundamental philosophical priorities of federal health agencies have been dramatically redirected. Under the leadership of the Department of Health and Human Services, the Make Our Children Healthy Again (MAHA) initiative has fundamentally altered the trajectory and funding mechanisms of the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration.29

Historically, the National Institutes of Health heavily prioritized traditional biomedical research, molecular genetics, infectious disease study, and advanced pharmaceutical interventions. The MAHA strategy mandates a sharp pivot toward addressing the root environmental, dietary, and lifestyle causes of childhood chronic diseases, nutrition, and toxic exposures.29 Following a 100-day assessment by a commission composed of top cabinet officials—including the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency—the administration unveiled a comprehensive strategy to combat the childhood chronic disease crisis.29

Under this new mandate, the National Institutes of Health is now championing initiatives that rigorously explore the role of ultra-processed diets in causing common chronic metabolic conditions, the impact of maternal dietary exposures on infant health, and the systemic effects of environmental toxins.31

At the regulatory level, the FDA is utilizing the MAHA framework to strictly limit or entirely prohibit petroleum-based food dyes in the food supply, a framework that the United States Department of Agriculture will mirror to prevent the inclusion of such dyes in school lunch programs.30 Furthermore, the FDA is moving to close the long-standing "Generally Recognized as Safe" (GRAS) loophole for food additives by implementing a mandatory notification and comprehensive review program, while also mandating stringent front-of-package nutrition labels.30

While public health advocates have praised this intense, preventative focus on lifestyle-based medicine and food safety, the rapid reallocation of finite agency resources has sparked intense concern within the traditional biomedical and clinical research communities. Proposals in the President's budget request to entirely eliminate specialized research entities, such as the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, reflect a highly volatile environment where foundational medical research agendas are subject to sudden, sweeping political shifts.32 The tension between funding immediate, preventative nutritional science and sustaining long-term, high-risk molecular biomedical research remains a central point of friction for the American medical community in 2026.

Part III: The Global Innovation Race and Geopolitical Decoupling

The domestic restructuring of American science is occurring against the backdrop of an intense, multipolar geopolitical competition. Leadership in advanced fields such as artificial intelligence, quantum computing, biotechnology, and advanced manufacturing is increasingly viewed not merely as an economic advantage, but as the primary determinant of future national security and global hegemony.

Decoupling and the ASPI Critical Technology Tracker

The scientific competition between the United States and the People's Republic of China has evolved into a structural decoupling of their respective research ecosystems. For decades, US-Chinese scientific collaboration grew exponentially, resulting in shared publications and mutual talent exchange. However, data compiled in 2025 and 2026 indicates that joint technical research collaboration peaked in 2019 and has been steadily declining.33 This downward trend coincides with the launch and continuation of aggressive US policies aimed at guarding against economic espionage and the illicit transfer of intellectual property, notably through programs like the Justice Department's China Initiative.33 As collaboration with US researchers diminishes, Chinese institutions have rapidly strengthened research connections with non-Western partners, including Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran.33

As the collaborative ties sever, a stark and concerning comparative picture has emerged for the United States. According to the 2025 Critical Technology Tracker published by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI)—which recently expanded its mapping from 44 to 74 strategically important fields—China has established a staggering, systemic lead in high-impact research. By analyzing the top ten percent of the most-cited research outputs globally, ASPI revealed that China currently leads the world in 66 out of 74 critical technologies, while the United States holds the lead in only eight.34

China’s dominance is expansive, spanning defense systems, advanced space technologies, robotics, energy, biotechnology, advanced materials, and key quantum technology domains.35 In several specialized fields, all of the world's top ten leading research institutions are based in China, collectively generating up to nine times more high-impact research papers than the second-ranked country, which is most often the US.35 For example, the Chinese Academy of Sciences consistently ranks first or second globally across dozens of technologies. China recently overtook the United States in small satellite research—a domain previously dominated by American institutions—highlighting the success of Beijing's civil-military fusion system in driving technological supremacy.36

Conversely, the United States maintains a fortified lead in highly specialized medical and computing niches. In the field of neuroprosthetics, the US possesses exclusive dominance; all seven of the world's top research institutions in this field are US-based, with no Chinese institutions ranking in the global top ten.36 Furthermore, while China leads in the sheer volume of high-impact publications regarding generative AI, the United States continues to employ the largest share of top-tier, industry-leading tech talent across global cohorts, supported by its immense private-sector ecosystem.36

Table 4 provides a snapshot of the geopolitical distribution of high-impact research leadership across newly tracked critical technologies in 2025.

Table 4: Global Leadership in Emerging Critical Technologies (ASPI 2025 Tracker Data)


Technology Domain

Leading Nation

Key Geopolitical Insights

Advanced Materials

China

Dominates top 10 institutions; produces highly cited outputs at multiple multiples of US output.35

Small Satellites

China

Recently overtook the US, aligning with Beijing's deep civil-military fusion strategies.36

Neuroprosthetics

United States

Exclusive US dominance; all leading institutions are US-based with no Chinese presence in the top tier.36

Brain-Computer Interfaces

China

Emerging global lead, pulling ahead of EU and US in high-impact citations.34

Generative AI

China

Leading in publication volume, though the US maintains significant corporate implementation and talent leads.34

Research and Development Expenditure Dynamics

The output disparity highlighted by the ASPI tracker is directly linked to shifting macroeconomic trends in Research and Development (R&D) expenditure. While the global economy has become increasingly research-intensive—with global R&D spending approaching the 3 trillion dollar mark and representing approximately 2 percent of global GDP—the balance of investment power is shifting.37

The United States continues to be an absolute powerhouse in total nominal R&D dollars, largely buoyed by the private business sector. In recent years, the US performed nearly 940 billion dollars in total R&D.38 However, China's rate of investment growth is dramatically outpacing that of the United States. Recent evaluations demonstrate that US growth in gross domestic expenditures on R&D has slowed to an average of 4.7 percent, whereas China maintains a stable and high 8.9 percent annual growth rate.39

Furthermore, simple nominal dollar comparisons mask a critical economic reality: the cost of conducting research is significantly lower in China. Adjusting for size and wage differences, Chinese firms are currently outpacing US firms in R&D investments across several advanced industrial sectors.40 It is estimated that for every 100,000 dollars spent on R&D, a Chinese firm can afford to employ 2.3 researchers for every single researcher employed in the United States.39 Drawing on its larger population and long-term commitment to technical education, China now employs more researchers than the United States and the European Union combined, and is on track to graduate nearly twice as many STEM PhDs annually.41

The macroeconomic implications of reducing federal investments in the face of this competition are severe. Recent empirical evidence from the National Bureau of Economic Research points to a strong, direct causal link between federal nondefense R&D funding and private-sector productivity growth.42 Reducing public investments in basic science to achieve short-term fiscal consolidation threatens to shrink the broader economy. Economic modeling estimates that a 20 percent cut in federal R&D over ten years could reduce US economic growth by nearly 1.5 trillion dollars compared to China's growth trajectory, severely impacting future tax revenues and global market share in advanced industries.43 The long-term stagnation of federal appropriations against the promised CHIPS and Science Act authorizations places the US at a distinct structural disadvantage.

Part IV: Systemic Challenges for the Scientific Community in 2026

As the United States navigates shifting budgets, administrative restructuring, and fierce international competition, the domestic scientific community faces deep systemic challenges that threaten the operational integrity of the research enterprise. In 2026, two overlapping crises dominate the landscape: a historical depletion of the federal scientific workforce, and the degradation of the academic publishing and peer-review systems.

The Mass Exodus of the Federal STEM Workforce

Perhaps the most critical, yet underreported, crisis in American science in 2026 is the rapid and severe depletion of human capital within the federal government. Following the change in presidential administrations and the subsequent implementation of sweeping policy and budget shifts in 2025, the federal government suffered an unprecedented loss of scientific expertise. Data analyzed from the United States Office of Personnel Management indicates that over 10,109 doctoral-level scientists in STEM fields departed from federal agencies in a single year.44

This exodus represents a 14 percent reduction in the federal STEM PhD workforce, marking the largest annual decline ever recorded in modern history.45 The losses were heavily concentrated in the nation's premier research institutions. The National Institutes of Health, the leading funder of biomedical research, lost over 1,100 PhD scientists.44 The National Science Foundation lost over 200 doctoral scientists, representing an astonishing 40 percent of the agency's specialized doctoral workforce compared to pre-2025 levels.44

The second-order effects of this monumental brain drain are crippling the administrative capacity of the state. Federal science agencies rely heavily on long-tenured, highly specialized experts not just to conduct intramural laboratory research, but to manage billions of dollars in complex extramural grants, oversee highly technical regulatory science (such as FDA approvals for novel drugs and NAMs), and design long-term strategic technological roadmaps.45 With departures currently outpacing new hires at a ratio of nearly eleven to one across research-intensive agencies, the government is rapidly losing its institutional memory.45 While many of these departures were officially classified as voluntary retirements or resignations, external factors—including deep disagreements with incoming administration policies, fear of politically motivated dismissals, the appeal of lucrative private-sector severance offers, and general uncertainty over science budgets—heavily influenced the mass exit.44

This federal attrition is compounded by an ongoing, systemic failure in the domestic K-12 and university STEM talent pipeline. Fragmented educational curricula, a lack of career-connected learning, and public misperceptions regarding defense and scientific roles have suppressed student interest in foundational STEM careers before individuals even enter the workforce.47 Consequently, the United States is graduating significantly fewer STEM PhDs than its global competitors, leading to a shallow talent pool from which the government, academia, and industry must fiercely compete.41

The Artificial Intelligence Academic Publishing Crisis

As the workforce shrinks and researchers face intense pressure to secure funding from a dramatically smaller pool of available federal grants, the foundational mechanisms of academic publishing and peer review are buckling under the weight of generative artificial intelligence.

In 2025 and 2026, the use of large language models to draft, format, and generate scientific manuscripts exploded across all academic disciplines. While AI offers legitimate and powerful utility in streamlining literature reviews, standardizing data formatting, and aiding non-native English speakers, it has also facilitated the industrial-scale production of fraudulent science. Operations known as "paper mills" use AI tools to generate multiple, subtly different papers that reuse content, present fabricated data, and constitute illegitimate contributions to the scientific literature.49

The inundation of these AI-generated manuscripts has created a massive, crippling bottleneck in the peer review system. Pre-print servers—which allow researchers to post findings before formal peer review—have been flooded with submissions. A comprehensive analysis conducted by researchers at Cornell University and UC Berkeley examined over two million papers uploaded to major pre-print servers (arXiv, bioRxiv, and SSRN) between 2018 and 2024. The study revealed a highly disturbing trend: a direct inverse relationship between writing sophistication and scientific quality.50 Historically, highly complex and sophisticated academic writing correlated with high-quality, human-driven scientific inquiry. However, the study demonstrated that while AI agents can easily produce highly sophisticated, complex prose, the actual underlying scientific data and experimental rigor in these automated articles are of substantially lower quality than in human-written papers.50

This phenomenon places an unsustainable burden on human evaluators. Peer reviewers—many of whom are already strained by the federal workforce exodus and the highly competitive grant environment—are forced to sift through an unprecedented volume of artificially generated noise to find legitimate scientific signals.50 The infiltration of AI into the publishing ecosystem has prompted urgent calls from leading journals, such as eNeuro, for automated detection systems controlled by non-profit scientific bodies, the implementation of double-blind review processes, legal frameworks to strictly sanction fraudulent paper mill operations, and a cultural shift away from using raw publication volume as the primary metric for academic success.51

Emergency Modifications to Peer Review

The compounding effects of severe budget constraints, agency restructuring, and the massive backlog of grant applications caused by government shutdowns have forced administrative overhauls at the operational level of science funding. At the National Institutes of Health, over 370 peer review meetings were canceled in late 2025, delaying the evaluation of over 24,000 research applications.52

Facing an expected influx of nearly 100,000 applications for the 2026 fiscal year and operating with a vastly reduced administrative workforce, the National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review was forced to enact emergency modifications to its peer review process.52 Committees are now required to vote on applications using a strict, three-tier triage system. Only the top tier, representing 30 to 35 percent of applications, is discussed in review meetings and considered for immediate funding.52 The middle third is designated as "competitive but not discussed," while the lowest third is designated as non-competitive and entirely dismissed without discussion to save time.52

This emergency triage system represents a profound shift in how scientific merit is evaluated in the United States. It forces a transition from deep, nuanced peer review—which often catches subtle brilliance in highly novel or high-risk proposals—to a highly centralized, rapid-fire prioritization driven by sheer application volume and budget scarcity.52 As the President of the National Academy of Sciences noted, in an environment characterized by extreme competition for dwindling funds, peer reviewers tend to look for reasons not to fund proposals, actively discouraging the kind of high-risk, high-reward innovation that drives true scientific breakthroughs.46

Conclusion

The State of the American Scientific Enterprise in 2026 is one of brilliant technological potential deeply constrained by systemic fragility and institutional upheaval. The scientific community continues to demonstrate remarkable resilience, achieving paradigm-shifting milestones in algorithmic fault-tolerant quantum computing, AI-driven molecular discovery, and human-relevant microphysiological drug testing. The convergence of these advanced technologies promises to revolutionize everything from the resilience of clean energy grids to the precision of targeted therapeutics.

However, the realization of this immense potential is actively jeopardized by a highly volatile policy and fiscal environment. The failure to appropriate the expansive funds authorized by the CHIPS and Science Act, coupled with drastic proposed cuts to the National Science Foundation and NASA, signals a dramatic retreat from the broad, foundational basic research strategies that built American scientific hegemony throughout the 20th century. The surgical focus on defense-critical technologies, alongside the restructuring of major health agencies toward lifestyle and nutritional interventions, reflects a profound ideological shift in how the federal government views the purpose, utility, and administration of public science.

Simultaneously, the geopolitical landscape leaves no room for domestic stagnation. As China aggressively expands its research and development investments, optimizes its massive STEM talent pipeline, and establishes commanding global leads across a vast majority of critical technology sectors, the United States finds itself heavily reliant on its robust private sector and a shrinking pool of public researchers to maintain parity.

To navigate the complex challenges of the coming year, the American scientific community must directly address the intertwined crises of the federal brain drain and the AI-induced degradation of academic publishing. Rebuilding the institutional capacity of federal funding agencies, protecting the integrity of peer review from algorithmic manipulation, and forcefully advocating for stable, long-term public investments across all disciplines will be essential. The United States remains a premier engine of global innovation, but sustaining that engine will require an urgent and honest reconciliation between the nation's ambitious technological goals and the structural realities of its increasingly strained research ecosystem.

Works cited

  1. QuEra Computing Marks Record 2025 as the Year of Fault Tolerance and Over $230M of New Capital to Accelerate Industrial Deployment, accessed February 24, 2026, https://www.quera.com/press-releases/quera-computing-marks-record-2025-as-the-year-of-fault-tolerance-and-over-230m-of-new-capital-to-accelerate-industrial-deployment

  2. IBM lays out clear path to fault-tolerant quantum computing, accessed February 24, 2026, https://www.ibm.com/quantum/blog/large-scale-ftqc

  3. IonQ Achieves Landmark Result, Setting New World Record in Quantum Computing Performance, accessed February 24, 2026, https://www.ionq.com/news/ionq-achieves-landmark-result-setting-new-world-record-in-quantum-computing

  4. Quantum computing's six most important trends for 2025 - Moody's, accessed February 24, 2026, https://www.moodys.com/web/en/us/insights/quantum/quantum-computings-six-most-important-trends-for-2025.html

  5. Genesis Mission - Energy.gov, accessed February 24, 2026, https://www.energy.gov/genesis-mission

  6. Launching the Genesis Mission - The White House, accessed February 24, 2026, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/11/launching-the-genesis-mission/

  7. Energy Department Announces 26 Genesis Mission Science and Technology Challenges to Accelerate AI-Enabled American Innovation and Leadership, accessed February 24, 2026, https://www.energy.gov/articles/energy-department-announces-26-genesis-mission-science-and-technology-challenges

  8. DOE publishes 26 Genesis Mission AI challenges for energy and national security, accessed February 24, 2026, https://www.ans.org/news/article-7758/doe-publishes-26-genesis-mission-ai-challenges-for-energy-and-national-security/

  9. NSF in 2025: Keeping U.S. scientific research and innovation on the ..., accessed February 24, 2026, https://www.nsf.gov/science-matters/nsf-2025-keeping-us-scientific-research-innovation-cutting

  10. NSF announces new initiative to launch and scale a new generation ..., accessed February 24, 2026, https://www.nsf.gov/news/nsf-announces-new-initiative-launch-scale-new-generation

  11. The FDA's Plan to Phase Out Animal Testing - PMC, accessed February 24, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12834477/

  12. FDA Announces Plan to Phase Out Animal Testing Requirement for Monoclonal Antibodies and Other Drugs, accessed February 24, 2026, https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-announces-plan-phase-out-animal-testing-requirement-monoclonal-antibodies-and-other-drugs

  13. New Drug Approvals: “Human Organ-on-a-Chip” GAO Report Supports Innovation and Regulatory Policy for Non-Animal Models | Foley & Lardner LLP - JDSupra, accessed February 24, 2026, https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/new-drug-approvals-human-organ-on-a-5844397/

  14. Tissue Chip for Drug Screening | National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, accessed February 24, 2026, https://ncats.nih.gov/research/research-activities/tissue-chip

  15. The United States accelerates the development of alternative methods - Transcience, accessed February 24, 2026, https://transcience.fr/en/regulations-for-countries-outside-the-european-union-2/

  16. A New Era of Regulations | Emulate, accessed February 24, 2026, https://emulatebio.com/a-new-era-of-regulations/

  17. Organoids in 2025: The Year Regulation Met Reality - Lambda Biologics, accessed February 24, 2026, https://afs.lambda-bio.com/blog/organoids-in-2025-the-year-regulation-met-reality/

  18. These are the top 10 emerging technologies of 2025 - The World Economic Forum, accessed February 24, 2026, https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/06/top-10-emerging-technologies-of-2025/

  19. Scientific breakthroughs: 2026 emerging trends to watch | CAS, accessed February 24, 2026, https://www.cas.org/resources/cas-insights/scientific-breakthroughs-2026-emerging-trends-watch

  20. Policy Backgrounder: The Future of the CHIPS and Science Act - The Conference Board, accessed February 24, 2026, https://www.conference-board.org/research/ced-policy-backgrounders/the-future-of-the-CHIPS-and-Science-Act

  21. CHIPS and Science Act - Wikipedia, accessed February 24, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHIPS_and_Science_Act

  22. CHIPS and Science Funding Gaps Continues to Stifle Scientific Competitiveness - FAS.org, accessed February 24, 2026, https://fas.org/publication/chips-funding-gaps-april/

  23. The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2026 to 2036 | Congressional Budget Office - CBO.gov, accessed February 24, 2026, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/62105

  24. Science policy this week: June 2, 2025 - AIP.ORG, accessed February 24, 2026, https://www.aip.org/fyi/the-week-of-june-2-2025

  25. 19 Active Science Missions Canceled in NASA's FY2026 Budget Request, accessed February 24, 2026, https://www.friendsofnasa.org/2025/06/19-active-science-missions-cancelled-in.html

  26. FY 2026 Active mission cancellations | The Planetary Society, accessed February 24, 2026, https://www.planetary.org/charts/fy-2026-active-mission-cancellations

  27. New NASA budget would shut down 41 space… | The Planetary ..., accessed February 24, 2026, https://www.planetary.org/articles/billions-wasted-mysteries-unsolved-the-missions-nasa-may-be-forced-to-abandon

  28. Science policy this week: June 9, 2025 - AIP.ORG, accessed February 24, 2026, https://www.aip.org/fyi/the-week-of-june-9-2025

  29. MAHA-Report-The-White-House.pdf, accessed February 24, 2026, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/MAHA-Report-The-White-House.pdf

  30. MAHA Commission Report Details Federal Response to Childhood Chronic Disease | Insights | Holland & Knight, accessed February 24, 2026, https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2025/09/maha-commission-report-details-federal-response

  31. Advancing NIH's Mission Through a Unified Strategy | National Institutes of Health (NIH), accessed February 24, 2026, https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/nih-director/statements/advancing-nihs-mission-through-unified-strategy

  32. A Call to Protect the Nation's Investment in Integrative, Complementary, and Traditional Health Practice Research - PMC, accessed February 24, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12489201/

  33. US and Chinese tech research is decoupling—ASPI's Critical Tech Tracker | The Strategist, accessed February 24, 2026, https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/us-and-chinese-tech-research-is-decoupling-aspis-critical-tech-tracker/

  34. Global Tech Landscape Shifts in ASPI's 2025 Critical Technology Tracker - Office of the Vice President for Research - The University of Utah, accessed February 24, 2026, https://www.research.utah.edu/research-impact/global-tech-landscape-shifts-in-aspis-2025-critical-technology-tracker/

  35. ASPI's Critical Technology Tracker, accessed February 24, 2026, https://www.aspi.org.au/report/critical-technology-tracker/

  36. ASPI's Critical Technology Tracker: 2025 updates and 10 new technologies | The Strategist, accessed February 24, 2026, https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/aspis-critical-technology-tracker-2025-updates-and-10-new-technologies/

  37. End of Year Edition – Despite the Odds, Global R&D Spending Grew Again in 2024, Inching Closer to the USD 3 Trillion Mark - WIPO, accessed February 24, 2026, https://www.wipo.int/en/web/global-innovation-index/w/blogs/2025/end-of-year-edition

  38. Trends in U.S. R&D Performance and Funding - National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, accessed February 24, 2026, https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20257/trends-in-u-s-r-d-performance-and-funding

  39. China Is Catching Up in R&D—and May Have Already Pulled Ahead | ITIF, accessed February 24, 2026, https://itif.org/publications/2025/04/09/china-catching-up-rd-may-have-already-pulled-ahead/

  40. Tracking R&D Leadership: US Advantage Narrowing as China Gains Ground | ITIF, accessed February 24, 2026, https://itif.org/publications/2026/02/09/tracking-rd-leadership-us-advantage-narrowing-as-china-gains-ground/

  41. Competing with China's Public R&D Model: Lessons and Risks for U.S. Innovation Strategy - CSIS, accessed February 24, 2026, https://www.csis.org/analysis/competing-chinas-public-rd-model-lessons-and-risks-us-innovation-strategy

  42. The Social Returns to Public R&D - NBER, accessed February 24, 2026, https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c15155/c15155.pdf

  43. How Reducing Federal R&D Reduces GDP Growth | ITIF, accessed February 24, 2026, https://itif.org/publications/2025/09/15/how-reducing-federal-rd-reduces-gdp-growth/

  44. Crisis in U.S. Federal Science: The impact of a mass exodus of PhDs, accessed February 24, 2026, https://www.sciencearena.org/en/news/crisis-in-u-s-federal-science-the-impact-of-a-mass-exodus-of-phds/

  45. America's biggest science loss: federal government loses over 10,000 STEM PhD scientists in 2025 | - The Times of India, accessed February 24, 2026, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/science/americas-biggest-science-loss-federal-government-loses-over-10000-stem-phd-scientists-in-2025/articleshow/127727790.cms

  46. NAS President Says U.S. Science Is Facing 'Pessimistic' Future, Urges Changes to Regain Leadership in Science, accessed February 24, 2026, https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/nas-president-says-u-s-science-is-facing-pessimistic-future-urges-changes-to-regain-leadership-in-science

  47. The Hidden Opportunities Within the STEM Workforce Pipeline - NJIT Digital Commons, accessed February 24, 2026, https://digitalcommons.njit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1110&context=stemshowcase

  48. Connecting the Dots for Defense STEM Workforce Development, accessed February 24, 2026, https://issues.org/ense-stem-workforce-uday-david-wilcox/

  49. Artificial or Intelligent? The Impact of AI on Academic Publishing - PATIENT SAFETY, accessed February 24, 2026, https://patientsafetyj.com/article/147865-artificial-or-intelligent-the-impact-of-ai-on-academic-publishing

  50. How AI is transforming research: More papers, less quality, and a strained review system, accessed February 24, 2026, https://newsroom.haas.berkeley.edu/how-ai-is-transforming-research-more-papers-less-quality-and-a-strained-review-system/

  51. AI-Generated Scientific Papers: Crisis? What Crisis? - PMC, accessed February 24, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12810629/

  52. Emergency Modifications to NIH Peer Review | Grants & Funding, accessed February 24, 2026, https://grants.nih.gov/news-events/nih-extramural-nexus-news/2025/11/emergency-modifications-to-nih-peer-review

  53. How Federal Research Funding Is Changing—and What It Means for Brain Health - BHI, accessed February 24, 2026, https://brainhealthinstitute.rutgers.edu/2026/02/20/how-federal-research-funding-is-changing-nih-2026/

bottom of page