It was Robert Conn’s turn to shine, or perhaps more accurately, to bask, as he accepted the National Science Board’s (NSB) highest honor. Essentially a lifetime achievement award, the Vannevar Bush award recognized Conn’s “pioneering leadership in fusion engineering, his public service to the nation, and his visionary initiative of science philanthropy,” NSB chair Victor McCrary explained at NSB’s recent meeting at the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Alexandria, Va., headquarters.[i]McCrary, vice president for research and graduate programs and professor of chemistry at the University of the District of Columbia, invited him to say a few words. But Conn, whose titles include dean emeritus of the University of California San Diego Jacobs School of Engineering, didn’t intend to talk about himself. Instead, Conn wanted to, “as the Quakers say, speak truth to power. This is a public meeting, and this is a government agency.”
“This is an opportunity for me—having been in science policy as well as technically at the bench—to say something about the state of science as we see it today. I am very concerned,” said Conn, cofounder of the Science Philanthropy Alliance, whose members have given endowments of $140 billion.
The Vannevar Bush award “honors exceptional, and I mean exceptional, life-long leaders in the fields of science and technology. Award recipients demonstrate outstanding intellectual merit, dedicated public service, and significant contributions to science writ large,” McCrary explained. Conn, “a pioneer of fusion engineering and an extraordinary leader in both science and philanthropy, has proven himself exemplary in all three categories,” he said.
Conn was honored at a time of unparalleled uncertainty for NSF. As compliance officials and investigators know all too well by now, NSF—along with NIH and other federal research agencies—has faced mass layoffs as part of the reduction-in-force initiative. It has been cancelling awards, withholding funding and attempting to impose a 15% indirect cost rate. As far as this goes, NSF apparently hasn’t given up. On Aug. 14, NSF appealed a stay of the 15% rate, but as of RRC’s deadline, a temporary restraining order remained in place.
Agencies Facing ‘Deconstruction’
More than most federal agencies, with the exception of those the White House has moved to close, such as the Department of Education, NSF has had a big target on its back—and not just financially. In June, the Department of Housing and Urban Development announced plans to take over NSF’s headquarters, making no mention of relocation plans for NSF’s approximately 1,500 employees.
Looking to the more immediate future, the Trump administration is proposing NSF funding of $3.9 billion for fiscal year 2026, a 57% reduction from 2025. Although to date congressional committees have not approved such severe reductions, the Office of Management and Budget has contended that agencies may spend less than appropriated by Congress.
Making reference to some of these issues, Conn said what is “happening is not evolution, but revolution. That is a big difference. And what’s happening is deconstruction, for example, of agencies. That’s a big difference from a slight budget cut or a slight budget advance. What are the implications of this for the nation? I think they’re profound and long-term. The profoundness comes from the fact that we know from deep work, the relationship between federal support for research and development and economic growth,” Conn said.
Research has shown that, “for the last 80 years, 20% of business economic growth is due to federal spending on” research and development (R&D), he said. “So, there’s no, really, question in my mind about the relationship between federal funding of R&D and economic growth, particularly of businesses.” Cutting federal spending for basic science will have long-term negative consequences, Conn said.
Research has shown that, “for the last 80 years, 20% of business economic growth is due to federal spending on” research and development (R&D), he said. “So, there’s no, really, question in my mind about the relationship between federal funding of R&D and economic growth, particularly of businesses.” Cutting federal spending for basic science will have long-term negative consequences, Conn said.
‘Best, Brightest’ Limit Halts 80-Year Tradition
“And there’s one other piece of the story,” Conn continued. “I’ll start with a baseball metaphor. I played baseball as a young person, got into the Yankee Minor League. Suppose I said to you that in the major leagues today, we’re not allowed to have any foreign-born players. Yeah, I mean, you’re shocked, aren’t you? And you should be. Suppose we eliminated the 30% of players [who were] born elsewhere who are playing in the major leagues today. Would the game be better? Would they be sharper? Would everything be better or not? It’s obvious, right? And in the last 25 years, 25 of those players have won the most valuable player award.”
Drawing an analogy to business, “I’ll give you one last statistic,” Conn told NSB members and others at the meeting. “If you look at the market capitalization of the largest companies in the United States, the top 10 by market cap, so value, right? You guess how many of the CEOs were born abroad. Fifty percent. Half the CEOs of the top 10 by market cap companies in the United States were born abroad, came here for education, particularly graduate education. And they’re leading Microsoft, they’re leading Google, they’re leading Tesla and Nvidia and so on,” said Conn.
In his view, “we have two issues. One is the state of science, which I think is in trouble, and it means trouble for the country. That’s why I’m emphasizing it. And we are faced with weakening our ball team,” he said. “We’re limiting the best and the brightest from coming to the United States, which has been a hallmark of the United States for 80 years. So, we’re not going to field the best team of scientists in the future if we spend five or 10 years limiting the best and the brightest from coming.”
Conn’s comments were met with a round of applause; no discussion about his concerns took place during the open session of the meeting. Whether there was a response to his remarks during the closed session is, by definition, impossible to know.
No Details on Director, IG Searches
But NSB members know well the challenges facing the agency. NSF hasn’t had a director since Sethuraman Panchanathan, appointed by President Donald Trump during his first term, resigned in April. The president has not named his successor.
The job of NSF inspector general (IG) has also been vacant since the beginning of March, when Allison Lerner retired amid a wave of layoffs of IGs by the Trump administration. Lerner had been the IG since 2009. It is NSB’s responsibility to hire the IG.
The 22-member panel discussed both the director and the IG positions as well as staffing and relocation at its July 23 meeting, but members did so during closed sessions. An NSB spokesperson would confirm to RRC only that these topics were discussed and would not provide any details, such as whether NSB has begun interviewing IG candidates or when the vacancies might be filled.
After Conn delivered his remarks, NSB heard a brief update from Simon Malcomber, assistant director of NSF’s Directorate for Biological Sciences, about NSF’s efforts to comply with the administration’s May 23 executive order, “Restoring Gold Standard Science.”[ii]
