The White House Releases Its Vision For Science: What Role For Energy?

The latest report from the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), Science: A New Golden Age, has sent shockwaves through the scientific community. Dubbed a “new golden age,” this vision for American science is a radical overhaul of the existing system. At its core lies a misplaced emphasis on commercialization, defense capabilities, and innovation - with nuclear power touted as the unlikely hero.

The report’s authors seem to have taken a page from history, echoing Vannevar Bush’s 1945 document, Science: The Endless Frontier. However, instead of building on the successful partnership between government funding and self-directed basic research in universities, they propose a shift away from inquiry and knowledge towards commercialization and wealth.

Energy has long been a cornerstone of American innovation, with examples like the Manhattan Project and the Apollo Program serving as testaments to its transformative power. In Science: A New Golden Age, energy takes center stage once again - but not in the way one might expect. Gone are the hydrocarbons that have driven economic growth and fueled national security; instead, nuclear power is touted as the key to unlocking a “new golden age.” This departure from previous administrations’ focus on energy dominance through shale revolution and coal reserves raises questions about what drives this newfound love affair with nuclear power.

The report’s emphasis on securing U.S. dominance in critical and emerging technologies - including AI, quantum information science, and fusion - suggests that regaining the United States’ perceived position of technological superiority is a key motivation. This anxiety about competing with rising global powers reflects a growing concern about the country’s ability to innovate.

As physicists today would attest, nuclear power requires more than just building reactors and weapons; basic science played an essential role in its success - just as it will for quantum computing, fusion, and next-generation fission. Yet, the report downplays this fact, emphasizing commercialization and defense capabilities over discovery.

The White House’s vision raises more questions than answers about the future of American science. What does a “new golden age” mean for basic research? Will scientists be forced to adapt their work to suit the demands of commercialization and innovation? And what will happen to those who refuse to conform?

The implications of this report are far-reaching, with potential consequences that extend beyond the scientific community. The proposed federal rules giving political appointees oversight over grant funding, banning collaboration with foreign researchers, and realigning “research” itself to presidential priorities have already sparked controversy.

As the scientific community grapples with this radical shift in vision, one thing is certain: the future of American science will be shaped by more than just nuclear power. The question remains: what kind of science will we prioritize? Will we continue to value discovery and inquiry, or will we sacrifice them at the altar of commercialization and innovation?

The White House’s vision for a “new golden age” is a gamble that risks undermining decades of progress in American science. As the world looks on, it’s clear that the future of energy - and indeed, the future of American science itself - hangs precariously in the balance.