Among his many suggestions, Kratsios says a new government entity could handle basic research in the future. Under this new model, national laboratories and universities could serve \u201cas revitalized hubs of testing and evaluation for private industry.\u201d<\/p>\n
Kratsios also proposes investing in individual researchers and artificial intelligence rather than universities, largely because the Trump administration believes universities spend too much on overhead costs. <\/p>\n
L. Rafael Reif, who was recently the president of MIT for a decade, points out that research is expensive to conduct regardless of whether it takes place in a university lab or in a new government entity.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere is no way to give the money to a researcher and not spend money on electricity or equipment,\u201d Reif says. \u201cThere is no such thing.\u201d<\/p>\n
Colleges and universities are not perfect. Far from it: They have struggled in recent years to foster debate and civil disagreement. But universities are among the few places where basic research can take place without the expectation of profit and with protections from government interference. Decreasing financial support for basic research at universities is similar to cutting your retirement savings as a young professional \u2014 you will feel the consequences years down the road. <\/p>\n
Kratsios\u2019s report mentions the Apollo mission as an example of an ambitious project the likes of which he wants the country to pursue again. But American universities including MIT were involved in the Apollo mission, designing the \u201cnavigational system that was used by the command module and by the lunar module to get to the moon,\u201d Reif says. <\/p>\n
Kratsios argues that domestic scientific advancement has slowed over the last 30 years, largely because of federal and university bureaucracies that hamper innovation. Kratsios, who is not a scientist but for years worked for billionaire venture capitalist Peter Thiel, believes that the government needs to increase investment in projects that will produce greater returns in the age of artificial intelligence and other rapidly evolving technologies. <\/p>\n
\u201cOur task is to build a scientific enterprise that maximizes the marginal returns to intelligence, which means confronting, clearly, the factors that constrain its work,\u201d he wrote in his 126-page report \u201cScience: A New Golden Age.\u201d<\/p>\n
Kratsios, Thiel, and many of their fellow travelers exalt the breakthroughs happening in private companies like SpaceX; Kratsios recommends in the report that industry should have more access to the country\u2019s \u201claboratory research infrastructure.\u201d But many of the private sector\u2019s advancements are already built on decades of government-sponsored research<\/a> in university labs.<\/p>\n Kratsios doesn\u2019t clearly explain in the report how universities will fit into the nation\u2019s reimagined scientific enterprise, but he does suggest that universities and community colleges should focus more on technical training, especially to prepare students for manufacturing jobs. The press office for the White House\u2019s Office of Science and Technology Policy did not respond to my questions about the new research strategy. <\/p>\n Most scientists would probably agree with Kratsios that less paperwork and less bureaucracy would be nice, but Kratsios seems to be operating under the assumption that artificial intelligence will replace the need for many scientists and researchers in the years to come. Universities, which also train future scientists, would presumably be less important in a world where AI is responsible for conducting our most important research.<\/p>\n Indeed, this summer the White House announced more than $5 billion<\/a> in federal commitments for Genesis Mission, \u201ca national effort to harness AI for science.\u201d <\/p>\n Robert Brown, a former president of Boston University and a chemical engineer, questions how artificial intelligence could ever replace basic research in universities. Scientific breakthroughs often come after exploring completely unrelated questions, dictated by researchers\u2019 curiosity. <\/p>\n \u201cCreativity, imagination are not the same as asking Claude to answer a question,\u201d Brown says.<\/p>\n Brown says the report\u2019s recommendations seem to be \u201csetting the stage to try to drive another wedge into research universities and see if people will come out and form different kinds of organizations outside.\u201d <\/p>\n![\"Michael](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/OJSMMHB3BFFYHP3CRA4CAABUGU.jpg\")
Michael Kratsios, director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, in the Oval Office on July 24.Eric Lee\/Getty<\/p>\n