The question
Mission targets or investigator freedom?
Organize around concrete targets
Michael Kratsios
The reported agenda uses defined capabilities and target years to focus federal agencies and outside investment. Quantum computing, fusion and AI-assisted science were presented as large projects requiring coordinated resources and sustained effort. Such milestones can make the intended result visible and give participating institutions a common objective.
Read the supporting evidence
The passage does not define “scientifically relevant” quantum computing or establish that the stated timelines are feasible.
I think the second is around quantum computing. So the president signed an executive order just last month, launching a new national quantum initiative. And one of the key goals there that we're trying to do is create a scientifically relevant quantum computer by 2028 This is a directive to the Department of Energy, and we're going to be working very hard to make sure we can hit that pretty crazy timeline. I mean, your camp, we really want to get the fusion by 2035, and we're trying very hard to get the resources allocated at DOE and combine with all the private sector investment to get there. And I think the last one, which is kind of our big flagship project for the whole administration, is called the Genesis Mission. And that is where we want to essentially double the scientific output of the United States by applying AI to our hardest scientific challenges and endeavors.Michael Kratsios: Trump's Science Agenda, Anti-Science Claims, Fauci's Damage, DEI & China ↗
Seek to 22:51
Fund talent without forecasting results
Eric Weinstein
The investigator-led case argues that science suffers when administrators demand predictable objectives and measurable returns before work begins. Instead, unusually capable researchers could receive continuing support, pursue questions they consider important and be mobilized when national problems arise. This model preserves inquiry whose eventual application cannot be specified in a grant proposal.
Read the supporting evidence
The proposed model does not explain how researchers would be selected, reviewed or replaced.
And so my claim is a lot of what you want is you want these people on retainer. So whenever you have a real problem, you call up the Jasons and it's stocked with the most terrifying intellects you can imagine. And we can get to work and we can solve your problems. But if you're saying, well, why should my taxpayer dollars go to whatever you find interesting? Well, if I can pursue what I find interesting. And when you call me up, I'm going to be very friendly to helping my own country, my own nation. I'm going to feel positive about that. If you tell me you should work on this because this thing is what drives the ROI, my feeling is, do you just not understand science?Eric Weinstein: The State of American Science, Breakthrough Coverups, and the Danger of Physics ↗
Seek to 32:50
When you say slush funds, the way the funding process works in the modern era is grants. You apply for a grant with a very specific set of objectives, and that's what the capital is going to be used for. To your point earlier, grants are typically approved if they're lower beta, which means more predictable in terms of the outcome.Eric Weinstein: The State of American Science, Breakthrough Coverups, and the Danger of Physics ↗
Seek to 35:55
Whether new programs combine measurable mission goals with protected funding for uncertain, investigator-led work.