Question A:
Independent of any other cuts to public funding of scientific research, a 55% reduction in the budget for the National Science Foundation would have no measurable effect on the well-being of the typical American over the next 10 years.
Responses
Responses weighted by each expert's confidence
Question B:
Historical federal support for scientific research has paid for itself through a substantial positive effect on long-run US productivity growth.
Responses
Responses weighted by each expert's confidence
Question A Participant Responses
| Participant | University | Vote | Confidence | Bio/Vote History |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Daron Acemoglu |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Mark Aguiar |
Princeton | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Joseph Altonji |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Alan Auerbach |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 David Autor |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Ten years is long enough for underinvestment to slow US economic growth. If the question had said one year, I would have had the opposite answer.
|
||||
 Abhijit Banerjee |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Dirk Bergemann |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Marianne Bertrand |
Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Markus Brunnermeier |
Princeton | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Judith Chevalier |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Ten years is an appropriately long horizon for research to have wide impact.
|
||||
 David Cutler |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Darrell Duffie |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Ten years is a short time horizon for newly funded NSF projects to cause measurable impacts on "typical Americans." For an horizon of, say, 20 years, I would definitely have disagreed.
|
||||
 Aaron Edlin |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
It would be a shocking coincidence if the costs and benefits of such a budget cut were exactly balanced. More likely, and almost surely, the expected benefits of science spending is dramatically positive. A single project like CRISPR could be worth a century of funding.
|
||||
 Barry Eichengreen |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Liran Einav |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Ray Fair |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Edward Glaeser |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Pinelopi Goldberg |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Michael Greenstone |
University of Chicago | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
 Oliver Hart |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Caroline Hoxby |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
The NSF funds basic research that is the foundation for R&D closer to downstream use. It is a public good for which even very R&D-oriented firms would not pay.
|
||||
 Hilary Hoynes |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Erik Hurst |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Kenneth Judd |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Steven Kaplan |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Depends on what is cut. Some NSF funding has been very productive; some has been counterproductive. There also are myriad alternatives, particularly with AI.
|
||||
 Anil Kashyap |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
This would be less than $5 billion change. It might be a good investment to measurably affect people there is little change.
|
||||
 Pete Klenow |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
 Jonathan Levin |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Eric Maskin |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Basic science unquestionably improves well-being in the long run. But I'm unsure whether 10years is long enough fir a cut to matter.Also, the answer depends on how much funding can be replaced by private sources.
|
||||
 William Nordhaus |
Yale | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
 Maurice Obstfeld |
Peterson Institute for International Economics | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
US productivity growth builds on scientific research, which is underprovided by the market.
|
||||
 Parag Pathak |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Larry Samuelson |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Ten years is a relatively short time for basic research to have effect, and so there may be no effect; but developments in some fields are occurring so quickly that such a cut may well have an effect.
|
||||
 José Scheinkman |
Columbia University | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
The amount of the reduction contemplated is $5 billion, which using the best estimates in the literature would have returned $20 billion to US residents.
|
||||
 Richard Schmalensee |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
I would agree with no effect over 5 years, but one might see something in 10.
|
||||
 Fiona Scott Morton |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
The effect is long run
|
||||
 Carl Shapiro |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Robert Shimer |
University of Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Stefanie Stantcheva |
Harvard | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
 James Stock |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Fundamental science can come to market increasingly quickly: materials science, quantum computing, solid state cooling & heating, etc.
|
||||
 Nancy Stokey |
University of Chicago | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
 Chad Syverson |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Recent estimates indicate returns to non-defense gov't R&D of about 200%, and this might be an underestimate; cites below. The proposed $5B cut then results in an annual loss of about $30 per capita. (Anyone thinking that's small can mail me that amount.)
-see background information here -see background information here -see background information here |
||||
 Richard Thaler |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Christopher Udry |
Northwestern | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
My uncertainty is mostly over timing - the costs of reducing research activity that had been supported by NSF will be accrued over a long period, and there is fundamental uncertainty about what would have been discovered and when.
|
||||
 Ivan Werning |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Uncertain only because 10 years may not be enough time for measurable effects reach households. But effects is immediately on production of ideas and R&D, which has impact further out, e.g. horizon 20-30y from basic research to production.
|
||||
Question B Participant Responses
| Participant | University | Vote | Confidence | Bio/Vote History |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Daron Acemoglu |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Mark Aguiar |
Princeton | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Joseph Altonji |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Alan Auerbach |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
David Autor |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Abhijit Banerjee |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Dirk Bergemann |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Marianne Bertrand |
Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Markus Brunnermeier |
Princeton | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Judith Chevalier |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
I would not have raised productivity growth as the only or even dominant channel, however.
|
||||
|
David Cutler |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Darrell Duffie |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Aaron Edlin |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
See comment above. Bell Labs is long gone and we cannot rely on industry for basic research.
|
||||
|
Barry Eichengreen |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Liran Einav |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Ray Fair |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Edward Glaeser |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
My confidence comes from health spending (NIH) more than non-health science spending.
-see background information here |
||||
|
Pinelopi Goldberg |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Michael Greenstone |
University of Chicago | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
|
Oliver Hart |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Caroline Hoxby |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
My confidence is based mainly on economic logic and the strict peer-reviewing at NSF. However, the empirical evidence is also broadly supportive.
|
||||
|
Hilary Hoynes |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Erik Hurst |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Kenneth Judd |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Steven Kaplan |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Anil Kashyap |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
you can the impact of the returns from basic science everywhere...
|
||||
|
Pete Klenow |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Jonathan Levin |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Eric Maskin |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
strong evidence here
|
||||
|
William Nordhaus |
Yale | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
|
Maurice Obstfeld |
Peterson Institute for International Economics | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Parag Pathak |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Larry Samuelson |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Basic scientific research is the essential key to long-run productivity growth.
|
||||
|
José Scheinkman |
Columbia University | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
There is a large literature in economics demonstrating that federal support for scientific research induced a large positive effect on US productivity growth. (See Dyevre, 2024 for a recent example)
-see background information here |
||||
|
Richard Schmalensee |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
If this isn't true...?
|
||||
|
Fiona Scott Morton |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Carl Shapiro |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Robert Shimer |
University of Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Stefanie Stantcheva |
Harvard | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
|
James Stock |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Nancy Stokey |
University of Chicago | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
|
Chad Syverson |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
See cites above
|
||||
|
Richard Thaler |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Christopher Udry |
Northwestern | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Take your pick: Human genome project, the internet, mRNA vaccines, spectrum auctions, kidney exchange, GPS, ...
|
||||
|
Ivan Werning |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Impossible to know 100%, but a clear yes beyond reasonable doubt. Technology advance has been a key driver of growth. Small US Fed funding likely comes with big spillovers in basic science and R&D ecosystem, supporting idea creation and scientist training, key to leading tech.
|
||||
