National Journal article quotes CCNY physicist Michael Lubell
Democratic lawmakers condemned the Trump administration’s science budget for fiscal 2021, arguing that boosts to AI and quantum research won’t make up for steep cuts elsewhere.
The White House’s budget proposal for science and technology research met with disapproval from Democrats on the House Science Committee Thursday, with lawmakers pressing President Trump’s top science coordinator on massive proposed cuts to a number of federal research projects.
Kelvin Droegemeier, director of the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, tried to impress lawmakers with the administration’s plan to increase funding for the development of artificial intelligence and quantum information science—two areas where the Chinese government has invested significantly in recent years.
But Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson was unmoved.
“Large increases for artificial intelligence and quantum science—which, of course, I support—are more than offset by cuts to all other areas of research,” said Johnson, singling out for particular criticism plans to slash funding to STEM education and alternative-energy sources.
“While there are a few bright spots in this proposal, this request represents a disturbing and ill-advised disregard of the pressing issues facing this country, and the urgent need for science and engineering solutions to help us address them,” Johnson said.
The clash between Congress and the Trump administration over science funding is a familiar one. House Democrats soundly rejected the steep cuts proposed by the White House during the last fiscal cycle, ultimately delivering a budget that pumped billions of additional dollars into basic research projects.
The White House is again seeking significant cuts—the National Institutes of Health’s research budget would decline by 7 percent, NASA’s would fall by 11 percent, and the Energy Department’s by 17 percent. The Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, set up to explore energy technologies that could help mitigate climate change, would be eliminated entirely.
What’s new, however, is the administration’s effort to significantly bolster investments in AI and quantum information science.
The White House increased its ask for National Science Foundation spending on nondefense AI by more than 70 percent, and quantum information science is set to receive a 50 percent boost compared to last year’s White House budget. The administration says it hopes to double spending in both by fiscal 2022.
The focus on AI and quantum science comes as China dumps billions into the same technologies. Many of the world’s top AI firms are headquartered in China, and Beijing has sunk massive amounts of money into the development of ultra-fast quantum computers that can break the encryption standards surrounding sensitive U.S. government communications.
Johnson told reporters she spoke with Droegemeier ahead of Thursday’s hearing about the research investments being made by China, particularly in AI and quantum computing. And while she lamented the cuts to other research areas, she said federal spending must confront Chinese efforts in both fields.
“We should be focusing on our own priorities, but we cannot ignore what China is doing,” Johnson said, adding that she’d work to convince her colleagues on the relevant appropriations committees to balance the competing concerns.
But it may be difficult for lawmakers to boost AI and quantum at White House-recommended levels while also maintaining federal research dollars elsewhere.
Tim Clancy, president of Arch Street, a consulting firm focused on federal science policy, said the budget caps put in place through last year’s deal between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell mean increased spending on AI and quantum science may require steeper cuts to other research priorities.
“If we’re in a flat budget environment, do we have to cut, or hold strictly to zero, other disciplines to be able to fund these priorities where they need to be? That’s the big concern,” he said.
Clancy said the “geopolitical fear factor” surrounding Beijing’s rise is an undeniable driver of the administration’s focus on AI and quantum science, though, he added, it’s not the only factor at play.
Michael Lubell, a physicist at the City College of New York who tracks federal science policy, said fears over foreign investments in technologies with profound defense applications—and both AI and quantum science fit that bill—are nothing new.
“China is the big motivator right now,” Lubell said. “But historically, national security, defense, and so forth, as well as disease, have been the two primary motivators of federal support for science.”
What’s different this time is the increased focus on nondefense AI research. And there, too, China’s strong investments in civilian AI research appear to be driving the Trump administration’s priorities.
“If one nation, and China’s a big concern, has a monopoly on it, business is going to go in that direction,” Lubell said.
But an undue focus on China’s high-profile investments in AI and quantum science may be self-defeating.
Martijn Rasser, a senior fellow in technology and national security at the Center for a New American Security, said that if the goal is containing China’s scientific prowess, increased funding for AI and quantum computing “cannot come at the expense of research and development in all these other areas.”
“Beijing is investing in areas that the Trump administration is proposing cutting back on,” Rasser said. “China’s taking a very broad-based approach toward science and technology generally.”
Several experts expressed particular concern that the White House seems fixated on research into specific AI and quantum applications, as opposed to basic research in a wider range of emerging technologies.
“We don’t know what the next thing is going to be, and that’s why cutting basic research funding is extremely risky,” Rasser said. “I find it dangerous.”
Brendan Bordelon | Tech policy reporter
bbordelon@nationaljournal.com
| C: 925-324-9253 O: 202-266-7470 | @BrendanBordelon