Since the 1960s, the source of U.S. R&D funding has flipped dramatically to industry-supported (from 30/70 to 70/30 industry/govt). Are these trends sustainable? Please describe the implications as you see them.

Answer Explanations

• Maybe

  user-287804
  Although I would prefer higher federal funding as I think that the government is responsible for research endeavors, I realize that the federation is supporting research less and less. Hence, It is good that research funding is more picked up by industry.
• Maybe

  user-753537
  High % of industry funding of total funding may affect: 
  -areas that are of lower interest to industry because there are less monetary incentives (e.g. in health: non-pharma therapies, prevention research) 
  -the quality/focus of studies, even with 'clean' protocol registration, reporting, etc, there will always be some biases in what is studied, how it is studied and how it is reported. 
  
  A more equal mix of different funding types can mitigate these risks.  
• Maybe

  user-362477
  Universities will have to adapt to this new model, but it should be sustainable.  It will put pressure on research programs to yield results in a more timely manner compared to federal funding with limited oversight.
• No

  user-190025
  I think predominantly public health research, preventive development and public management of health services; nevertheless, private industry financial sources are also necessary for scientific research and development. 
• No

  user-788178
  Federal
• No

  user-628049
  I was surprised by this, because the academic institutions I am/have been associated with get the majority of their funding from Federal grants. So I had assumed that Federal grants were the primary source of R&D funding in the U.S. The Biopharm corporate sector has grown considerably and profitably over time, so I'm not surprised to see increases in their contribution to research (most of which is internally funded by the industry's own earnings as far as I'm aware, although biopharm companies have also been known to apply for and receive Federal grants to support their research, which is rather ironic and irritating to be honest). Although the sharp and consistent decline of Federal support is alarming. And current administrating is ensuring this trend will continue. The truth is "Other" sources (non-profit, private donations, internal academic contribution) is not enough to pick up the slack. Many, if not most, non-profits rely on industry donations to have the resources to give to research - so it is essentially an indirect means to industry funding - and/or also rely on Federal grants. Internal academic funds are made available through tuition and indirects - indirects coming from Federal and industry grants. Endowments are not bank accounts meant to be drawn till dry. They are an investment fund that provides continuous long-term dividend financial support, but are also vulnerable to market changes. At this rate, soon 99% of all research in the U.S. will be industry owned. This will be extraordinarily expensive to the public who are most often the target of the final products, will make it nearly impossible to conduct research without conflict of interest and industry bias, and will allow for even more cherry picking of research priorities. This will lead to the essential "buy-out" of all academic, hospital, and non-profit research by industry. Basically, laundered ownership by industry - and the near elimination of independent research. The hardest hit areas will be the ones of high social welfare value, but lesser profit value. Technology and pharmaceutical research will do fine, even if the majority of funding is industry sponsored. But research into areas of public health, social needs, educational methods, healthcare accessibility, nutrition and preventive health, psychological health, anthropology, and environmental sciences will plummit to the point of being nothing more than "hobby" interests. This is counterproductive, because although not immediately profitable or directly tied into the corporate markets, these are all areas of importance critical to the foundation of a healthy and productive population and workforce. As a metaphor, you could have a decade of bumper crops, but neglect the soil's need for resources over time, and everything will wither instead of produce - regardless of how much "miracle-gro" you pour on. Society is no different. Nourishment and productivity start from the ground up - that requires investment in education, mental health, social health, environmental health, preventative health, and access to these across demographic barriers.  
• No

  user-124276
  Federal research should be encouraged to achieve certain goals and involvement of government employees to verify the status of development at the same time the basic res arch are the pillar of modern development. Decrease in funding for FR can't be supported and beneficial in long term. There should be a balance between the industrial as well as federal research.
• No

  user-114799
  The current direction of U.S. R&D funding moving from federal control towards industry control presents sustainability challenges. The shift toward private sector investment in R&D helps advance applied innovation and product development but presents systemic dangers for basic scientific inquiry and long-term research objectives which serve broader societal needs.
  
  Adversely Affected Areas:
  1. Public Health and Environmental Sciences
  2. Equity and Emerging Fields
  3. Academic Independence and Innovation Ecosystem
  
  The ongoing R&D funding framework remains unsustainable without strong federal funding for basic research and government regulations to maintain transparency and public accountability in privately funded projects. The future sustainability of U.S. research depends on creating a strategic funding system that integrates public goals with private sector creativity.
• No

  user-1163
  a financial return on scientific research should not be necessary or mandatory
• No

  user-848666
  All
• Maybe

  user-962029
  The answer to this question depends on a number of critical questions including (but not limited to) (see below). It is ominous to think about removing practices the federal process has developed to promote sound, unbiased research. However, there are many inherent problem with the federal funding process and the science that is produced through it. It is possible that progress could be made, theoretically. I think it's doubtful until a high level of transparency is achieved. 
  Specifically who is eligible in any given industry to carry out research? Are there qualifications? What steps are taken to promote independence and reduce bias? 
  What will the review process look like? How about dissemination?
  Ultimately, the federal funding system has produced good and bad research. Moving to industry feels like guardrails are being removed, the most significant potential problem being the conflict of interest when research is being conducted by those with stock in the product.
• Maybe

  user-676080
  The decline in U.S. R&D funding is likely to most adversely affect:
  
  

  1. Basic and early-stage research (often funded by federal agencies like NSF and NIH), which has fewer immediate commercial incentives but drives long-term innovation.
  2. High-risk, high-reward fields (e.g., quantum computing, fusion energy, and some biomedical research), where private investment is limited due to long timelines and uncertainty.
  3. Public-sector and non-defense R&D, as federal budgets prioritize defense-related research (e.g., DOD funding) over civilian applications (e.g., climate, energy, and social sciences).
• Yes

  user-481465
  Thats clear 
• No

  user-113837
  Discovery and high risk high gain projects will be unfavoured
• Maybe

  user-627640
  For industry to sustain basic research, they need to have the money - if they are doing poorly, they will cut back on basic research (likely)
• Yes

  user-154521
  Yes, 2023 ratio of US R&D (total) compared to GDP has never been higher (almost 3.5%).  So, it is not that there is less money going to research, people just need to get the money in different ways than the government.  If overall funding was down, it would be more concerning.  However, need to look at more details to fully understand what R&D funding is (does it include internal R&D within companies / external funding / peer review funding etc).
• Yes

  user-518140
  The majority of research funded or published will have economic factors as the main motivation, rather than the simply the scientific pursuit of knowledge.
• No

  user-27709
  Industry funding necessarily biases conclusions and validates/rejects hypotheses.
  It leads researchers to try to satisfy their funders.
• Maybe

  user-709065
  Research shows that Government and academic institutions remain crucial players in funding R&D, particularly for fundamental research and long-term projects. 
• No

  user-557043
  Short term this is probably sustainable but long term funding of R&D will result in a dearth of funding for basic research.  A lack of basuc research will result in the US falling behind in cutting edge areas like AI, Fusion and Biotechnology.
• Maybe

  user-717296
  While the current model can be sustained in the short to medium term, long-term sustainability will depend on ensuring a balanced ecosystem where public investment continues to seed foundational science and address collective needs not met by market forces alone.
  
  

  
  
  

  
  
  
• Yes

  user-307024
  R&D is based on innovative thinking and group practice. These institutions and activities are seeded with federal monies. Over time, these have shifted towards the industry and the private sector because monetising R&D is based on the latter sectors.  
• Yes

  user-683654
  Most of the findings help the industry to grow and in turn helps in tax payment to the Government. As such I think it is sustainable. 
• Maybe

  user-153764
  As Trump cuts NIH the only place to generate tox data is private sources.
• No

  user-816461
  Private funding prioritizes short-term, market-driven research, leading to underinvestment in basic science such as molecular biology, theoretical physics, and public health. Knowledge generated under industry sponsorship is often restricted by patents and paywalls, limiting data sharing and reproducibility. Areas like climate research and vaccine development suffer from unstable support due to corporate budget fluctuations. Government agencies like NIH and NSF are crucial for sustaining high-risk, long-horizon studies. Without public funding, early-stage innovations face a growing “valley of death.” The current model favors commercial gain over societal benefit, risking long-term stagnation in foundational scientific progress.
• No

  user-84037
  This will concentrate industry power to a select few and eventually drive research and scientific discovery to be increasingly privately owned. 
• Maybe

  user-47444
  For certain scientific fields, these trends may be sustainable. Specifically, fields that directly generate new products like pharmacology, biotechnology, machine-learning etc. However, it seems likely that scientific fields without direct monetary value but which are still important like psychology, political science, ecology, biology may suffer.
• Maybe

  user-899866
  From my perspective, fundings are a huge support to R&D, without the development and deployment phase both can be severely affected. It is concerning that federal has a strict funding decline from 60% to 10%  in recent years. Conversely, industry funding has been drastically raised. There must be some good trade off between fundings, especially for sustainability
• No

  user-807238
  Industry-supported funding is largely prone to bias that favors the industry.
• No

  user-805249
  This may not be sustainable as it may serve the interest of the funders. That drastically may influence the finding with bias
• Yes

  user-80130
  • Research is directed toward quick profit rather than long-term innovation or fundamental research.
  • It reduces funding for research in non-profitable areas (such as public health or the environment).
  • It creates a potential conflict between societal interests and market interests.

  
  

  Conclusion: This shift threatens the independence of scientific research and may undermine progress in fields that do not generate direct profits.

  
  
• Yes

  user-534157
  In the long-term it would be sustainable, because this is the way industries go. The problem is that industries set the goals of research to their own interests, so in this scenario the government must also be able to fund broader non-for-profit research pipelines
• Yes

  user-132935
  the current industry-dominant R&D model is not inherently unsustainable, but it risks undercutting the foundational research and long-term vision necessary for societal progress and national resilience. A healthy innovation system requires a strong public sector commitment to complement private sector dynamism.
• Maybe

  user-725082
  It has been more than two decades of industry sponsored research happening in the USA. Still government funded projects drive basic research, without which there can be no applied research.
• Yes

  user-983537
  Academic research is plagued by a tidal wave of publications containing false, irreproducible and pointless results. Increase in funding by industry is a welcome change because it will re-orient research in the direction of obtaining useful results and focusing on things that work in the real world rather than on hypotheticals. 
• No

  user-629372
  1. Credibility and Trust in Research:
     When funding comes predominantly from industry, there is an inherent risk of selective reporting, publication bias, and methodological limitations designed to favor the sponsor. This may erode trust among clinicians, researchers, and patients.
     
     
  2. Imbalanced Evidence Ecosystem:
     The industry tends to fund research that supports product adoption, rather than studies that explore comparative effectiveness, long-term outcomes, or cost-benefit analysis. As a result, clinically useful but less marketable techniques may be under-researched or overlooked.
     
     
  3. Need for Public/Independent Funding:
     For fields like endodontics, where device-driven innovation is accelerating, public and institutional investment is critical to support methodologically rigorous, unbiased studies. Independent research is crucial for validating or challenging marketing-driven claims and for informing evidence-based practice.
     
     
  4. Professional Responsibility:
     As clinicians and researchers, we must advocate for transparency in funding disclosures, support peer-reviewed publication of all results (positive or negative), and promote replication studies that can confirm or disprove industry-supported findings.
     
     

  
  
• No

  user-92676
  Probably basic research will suffer due to no funding for this type of studies.
• No

  user-97194
  There needs to be a balance.  50:50 is ideal.  While industrial funding in technology field is the right ask, industry funding for those fields that can yield adverse consequence to industrial operations can bias research
• Maybe

  user-180052
  These trends may not be sustainable. Federal and industry need to sponsor and support basic and applied  resarch innovation in order to enhance the pulic welfare and need to focus on pronlem driven and results oriented  using emmerging science and application relevant technologies.
• No

  user-365674
  This question is quite vague. Are the trends sustainable? No. because if continue they well have to level off at 100% industry. Will the US continue to lead the world in research without government support? Also no. US research universities are the envy of the world for their resources, creativity and academic freedom. In the absence of government funds, this cannot last. China will quickly come to dominate in science and technology.
• No

  user-102528
  Yes since it allows freedom of research expression.
• Yes

  user-513377
  Private industries and institutions typically attract significantly more funding from various organizations and the government, driven by their innovation capabilities and technological advancements. In contrast, government institutions often face challenges in securing similar levels of support. Their reliance on government funding can result in lower productivity and innovation compared to their private counterparts.
• No

  user-606148
  In my field (education technology), industry supports only efficacy research on their products, and then only in certain markets that demand evidence of efficacy.  Basic research and theory development is almost exclusively funded by government and military sources, with private foundations and international agencies funding only a tiny proportion of research.  
• Maybe

  user-360801
  The sustainability of this trend depends on multiple structural, economic, and political factors that are subject to change over time. While industry funding has become a crucial driver of technological progress particularly in applied fields like computing, pharmaceuticals, and engineering—there are inherent risks and limitations to this shift.
  
  Private R&D investment tends to focus on projects with clear, short-to-medium-term commercial returns. This can lead to underinvestment in basic research or high-risk science, areas that have traditionally relied on government support. If this imbalance continues, it may hinder the development of breakthrough innovations in the long run.
  
  

  On the other hand, government funding often targets public-interest goals such as public health, environmental sustainability, and energy security. A declining public role in R&D could leave critical societal challenges underfunded or ignored, which raises concerns about long-term resilience and equitable technological progress.
  
  
• No

  user-93207
  Industry often prioritize profit, since they are for profit institutions, and issues affecting public health including the poor or underserved do not spark interest since they will not result in profit. 
• No

  user-431578
  There are research topics that are extremely important in a long run (e.g. social security or fundamental physics), however they are not very attractive to private or 3rd sector investors. 
• No

  user-270813
  Need to revert to pre-1970s approach to develop basic science and to stop treating human knowledge merely as a tool for profit driven tool
• No

  user-477986
   No, this trend of more R&D funding coming from industry instead of the government is not good for the long term. Industry mainly spends on research that gives quick profit or useful products, but basic research that is important for future discoveries often gets ignored. This can slow down scientific progress and affect the country’s growth in technology. Also, when private companies give more money, research focus shifts to only those areas that give business profit, and important public issues like climate change, rare diseases, or social science may not get enough attention. It can also reduce the freedom of universities to do independent research, and some results may not be shared freely because they are kept private by companies. So, the government should again start giving more support to basic and public research to keep science balanced and useful for everyone. 
• Maybe

  user-220337
  The increase in the industry supported R7D funding is due to the fact that for a while if you want to access any funds you need an industry partner or that the research to be focused towards the industrial filed rather than fundamental research. 
• Yes

  user-580426
  The government bodies will go bankrupt due to freebies distribution, so ultimately most of the R&D will be funded by the industries only.
• No

  user-331846
  Short-Term Sustainability:
  Yes, in the short term, the model is likely sustainable because large corporations—especially in technology, pharmaceuticals, and defense—continue to prioritize R&D as a competitive edge. Private-sector incentives for innovation remain strong due to profit-driven motives and the need for market differentiation.
  
  

  Long-Term Concerns:
  Over the long term, the model is less sustainable if it leads to:
  
  

  • Underinvestment in basic research, which is typically government-driven due to its uncertain commercial return.
    
    
  • Increased concentration of innovation in a few sectors or corporations, potentially stifling broader scientific advancement.
    
    
  • Neglect of public interest-driven research, like public health, environmental sustainability, and education technology.
    
    
• No

  user-505512
  There is a dramatic difference in priorities. Unfortunately, in the past, federally funded work did not result in publicly available data. This must be remedied. Results from federally funded research should be freely and publicly available.
• Yes

  user-894724
  The need for funding is so high that federal support alone will not be sufficient. Industries participating in and contributing to research funds will surely lead to a greater number of research projects. However, industry participation is highly selective and interest-based. While federal funding will support independent research, which is essential for novel and currently required research aspects, industry participation is limited.
• No

  user-180413
  Privatization of science is very dangerous. Especially in the case of AI, as we can see already.
• No

  user-315337
  Not sustainable with the current crisis with federal funding.
• Maybe

  user-169864
  The question is not whether it is sustainable but desirable.
• Yes

  user-464935
  These trends are not sustainable because research can be skewed based on capitalism and lobbying from industries. It is important to have independent research outside of industry funded research to ensure there is no bias in the outcomes of the research.
• No

  user-411361
  The current R&D funding balance is unsustainable if the goal is long-term, inclusive innovation. While industry investment is essential, the U.S. must reinvigorate federal research funding to ensure breakthroughs that benefit all. Especially in areas the private sector won’t fund alone. Left unchecked, the imbalance could widen technological gaps, weaken national security, and erode the public good that science has historically provided.

  
  
• Maybe

  user-624651
  Maybe because heavy reliance on industry funding can provide continuous support for research that delivers direct profits but it may reduce attention to basic long term research that does not generate quick returns this could affect innovation in the long run and market fluctuations or shifts in corporate priorities might make funding less stable compared to government funding which is usually more consistent
• No

  user-158538
  Industries many collapse and fold. Government tend to last longer 
• No

  user-739321
  Without the basic science funding from federal, there will be no industry products overtime. 
• No

  user-368067
   The shift in U.S. R&D funding from predominantly government-supported to industry-led reflects broader economic and policy trends, including the rise of private sector innovation, global competition, and changing government priorities.  If this trend continues, there’s a risk of underinvestment in foundational research and public goods, which historically catalyzed major breakthroughs.  Sustainability, therefore, hinges on aligning public and private interests while preserving support for curiosity-driven science that may not offer immediate returns but builds the foundation for future discovery. 
• Maybe

  user-977724
  US will not 100% leave scientific development for its own growth 
• No

  user-483388
  I would separate fundamental research from functional/applied research.  Industry tends to only fund functional/applied research which builds on fundamental research, usually funded by the government.  We have still a good stock of fundamental research built in the past, but if it stalls, all research will suffer.  Thus, without government funding, no amount of industry funding will be sufficient for the U.S. to maintain global scientific leadership in most fields.
• Maybe

  user-13133
  Reversal of the relative funding ratios of U.S. R&D from 70% federal / 30% industry in the 1960s to 70% industry / 30% federal now is a stunning structural shift in the funding, conduct, and communication of science. Whether or not it is sustainable depends on what we understand by sustainability: economically, scientifically, or morally.
  
  Sustainability issues:
  Basic vs. Applied Research: Industry investment funds near-term, product-oriented R&D with market payback, often at the expense of basic, discovery-oriented science that establishes the roots of long-term innovation but has no near-term commercial potential.
  Equity and Access: 
  Industry-funded R&D can limit open access to data, methodology, and outcomes due to intellectual property concerns, reducing transparency and impeding cumulative scientific progress.
  
  Scientific Independence: 
  Dependence on industry generates potential conflicts of interest and study design, analysis, and publication biases—especially in health, energy, and environment.
  
  Resilience of Innovation Ecosystem:
   Strong federal R&D presence in the past kept research in public goods, grand-scale infrastructure (space, nuclear, climate), and high-risk investigations with uncertain returns. Reducing this role risks hollowing out core capacity and eliminates science as a public good.
  
  In total, industry leadership is economically sustainable but not scientifically and not ethically sustainable by itself. There needs to be equilibrium investment in an R&D environment: federal investment to continue with basic science and remain independent, and industry collaboration in order to translate discovery into social benefit.