The invisible hand of research is threatened by cuts, endangering innovation and academic freedom in the USA.
During a recent Ion event, Rice University President Reginald DesRoches → and ASU President Michael M. Crow → discussed how research universities drive innovation and economic growth while simultaneously enhancing the competitiveness of the United States through education and scientific discoveries.
A statement by Michael M. Crow, President of Arizona State University (ASU), highlighted a critical contradiction in the current American science and innovation landscape.
While technological innovators like Elon Musk and Steve Jobs are celebrated as geniuses, the fundamental academic research that makes their successes possible remains largely invisible.
This discrepancy gains particular poignancy in light of recent developments under the Trump administration. Massive cuts to research funding on the one hand, and the establishment of the "Department of Government Efficiency" (DOGE) on the other, present existential challenges to the scientific community. This report examines the tension between Crow's emphasis on scientific foundational work and current political actions which increasingly restrict scientific freedom.
The event at the Baker Institute for Public Policy, where Michael Crow made these statements →, took place on February 24, 2025 →.
The Invisible Hand of Academic Research
Michael Crow compellingly argues that behind every technological breakthrough like the iPhone or the innovations of Tesla and SpaceX are thousands of academic research groups, whose contributions mostly go unnoticed. In his speech at the Baker Institute for Public Policy, he emphasized that "there is no aspect of this iPhone 16 that was not significantly advanced and enabled by academic research and technological development at some point." His estimate of about 5,000 research groups that have contributed to the technologies contained in the iPhone over decades illustrates the massive collective research effort behind such products.
This academic fundamental research encompasses not only semiconductor technology with billions of transistors on a chip but ranges from materials science (Gorilla Glass) to battery technology to complex software systems. Crow characterizes academic research as the "invisible hand"—an apt metaphor for a force that, though decisive, rarely receives the recognition it deserves. Unlike Adam Smith's "invisible hand of the market," it can actually be proven here that research was conducted and there are players in the scientific field who, decades before the founding of companies, made the successes of many technologies possible.
According to Crow, the true achievement of entrepreneurs like Jobs and Musk does not lie in inventing fundamental technologies, but in the "integration, design, and organization" of existing scientific knowledge. This reorientation of the innovation narrative is crucial for an appropriate understanding of the relationship between basic research and commercial application.
Trump's Research Cuts: An Attack on the Innovation Base
The current US administration under President Donald Trump has made massive cuts in numerous research areas, directly contradicting Crow's emphasis on scientific foundational work. These cuts particularly affect climate and environmental research as well as medical research fields, raising alarms among scientists worldwide →.
The consequences of these cuts are severe: Important studies on diseases like Alzheimer's, cancer, and diabetes have been put on hold →. The heads of the US Environmental Protection Agency expressed their concern with clear words: "We fear that our agency will be unable to protect Americans from serious threats from the air, water, and soil" →. This statement underscores the far-reaching societal consequences of the research cuts.
Patrick Cramer, president of the German Max Planck Society, analyzes the situation even more sharply, accusing the Trump administration of wanting to "control science" and "roll back unwanted research fields" →. This assessment points to a fundamental conflict between political control and scientific freedom that goes far beyond mere budget issues.
The DOGE Initiative: Efficiency at the Expense of Research?
In this tense climate, the "Department of Government Efficiency" (DOGE) was established—a joint initiative by Elon Musk, supported by Donald Trump. The stated goal of DOGE is to improve the efficiency of the US federal government through technological modernization →. The agency plans to renew outdated systems and optimize processes, with Elon Musk seen as the driving force behind these measures →.
The irony of this constellation is striking: While Crow emphasizes that Musk's technological successes at Tesla and SpaceX are largely based on academic research ("all this is the result of academic research"), Musk is now involved in an initiative that is situated in the context of general research cuts. It raises the question of whether the sought-after "efficiency" will eventually come at the expense of fundamental research that makes future innovations possible in the first place.
Significantly, the DOGE-Department uses the logo of the cryptocurrency Dogecoin, which after the official website was launched, led to a temporary price spike of more than 11% →. This circumstance highlights the strong symbolic and economic impact of Musk's activities but also raises questions about potential conflicts of interest.
Legal Challenges for DOGE
The DOGE initiative faces legal challenges. The organization "National Security Counselors" has filed a lawsuit accusing DOGE of violating the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) →. This law mandates that government advisory committees comply with certain transparency regulations. Critics complain that DOGE does not disclose enough information about meetings and decision-making processes and that the team composition does not meet legal requirements →.
These legal objections point to fundamental concerns regarding the transparency and accountability of the initiative. Furthermore, the project recently lost an important advisor, Vivek Ramaswamy, who declared his withdrawal to focus on a gubernatorial candidacy in Ohio →.
International Reactions and Scientific Exodus
The developments in the USA have already had measurable impacts on the international scientific community. Various scientific academies from 40 European countries have written a joint letter expressing their concern about the situation. The Swiss Academies of Sciences have also signed this document →.
Yves Flückiger, President of the Swiss Academies of Sciences, emphasizes in this context the necessity for universities worldwide to "show their unwavering support for academic freedom as a foundation for future innovations and as an indispensable prerequisite for the fight against fake news." His statement underscores the link between scientific freedom and the ability to innovate, which is also central in Crow's argumentation.
Notably, European research institutions already report an increase in applications from the USA. The ETH Zurich reports "increased contacts from scientists working in the USA who are considering a change due to the current situation" →. Similarly, the Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute (Swiss TPH) in Basel reports a "sharp rise in applications from the USA." Specifically, from January 2025 to the reporting date, the institute received "already more than half of the number of applications from Americans compared to the annual average of the years 2022, 2023, and 2024."
This tendency for American scientists to emigrate could, in the long run, weaken the innovation capability of the USA—a development in direct contradiction to Crow's emphasis on the importance of academic research for technological progress.
Global Consequences of US Policy
The effects of the research cuts are not limited to the USA but have already had global consequences. Jürg Utzinger, Director of the Swiss TPH, reports that the US's funding halt for USAID and the shift in donor priorities have already had concrete impacts on important international programs. Projects in Tanzania and Ukraine, for instance, have been significantly affected by sharp budget cuts, with the consequence that "millions of people relying on HIV treatments, malaria prevention, or the fight against neglected tropical diseases are being left behind" →.
These global impacts illustrate that restrictions on scientific research have not only theoretical or local consequences but also concrete humanitarian effects for people worldwide.
Conclusion: The Paradox of Innovation Without Research
The contradiction between Michel Crow's emphasis on the importance of academic research for innovations and the current restrictions on scientific work in the USA reveals a fundamental paradox: While figures like Elon Musk are celebrated for their innovative products, the scientific foundations upon which these innovations are based are systematically weakened.
The DOGE initiative particularly highlights this contradiction: Elon Musk, whose technological successes according to Crow are largely based on academic research, is now involved in an initiative that exists in the context of general research cuts. The question of how long-term innovation is possible without corresponding fundamental research remains unanswered.
International reactions to US policy show that the scientific community views these developments with great concern. The increasing emigration of American scientists could, in the long run, lead to a shift of scientific excellence from the USA to Europe.
Michel Crow's metaphor of the "invisible hand" of academic research gains special significance in this context: The danger is that this hand will not only remain invisible but increasingly paralyzed—with potentially severe consequences for future innovations. The restrictions being experienced by science in the US due to DOGE and the research cuts thus pose not only an immediate threat to academic freedom but also long-term risks to the country's technological competitiveness.
