At research universities, zero-based budgeting is pretty rare. It means starting from zero expenditures and then justifying each budget line to reach an annual budget. It is frowned upon for long-term R&D projects for the apparent reason that it’s pretty challenging to predict a discovery that could be exploited to produce a measurable outcome.
Nevertheless, it’s worth considering using the process to optimize the entire US STEM/Biomedical enterprise from scratch.
Why Research Resists Zero-Based Budgeting
The resistance to zero-based budgeting in research environments stems from legitimate concerns. Academic institutions seldom adhere to a zero-based budget model because, as I stated above, scientific discovery is inherently unpredictable, and zero-based budgets require a significant amount of time and labor from units and university administrators to prepare, and this model can seriously encumber long-term planning.
Research requires substantial upfront investments in equipment, facilities, and human capital that only pay dividends over extended periods. The peer review system, while imperfect, has evolved as a way to allocate resources based on scientific merit rather than easily quantifiable metrics.
The Case for a National Reset
Despite these concerns, there’s a compelling argument for applying zero-based budgeting principles to the broader American STEM enterprise. Not at the individual project level, but at the systemic level—questioning fundamental assumptions about how we organize, fund, and conduct research.
Addressing Systemic Inefficiencies
Our current research ecosystem has evolved organically over decades, creating layers of bureaucracy, redundant administrative structures, and misaligned incentives. Universities compete for the same federal funding while maintaining parallel administrative infrastructures. A zero-based approach would force examination of whether these patterns serve our ultimate goals of scientific progress and national competitiveness.
Responding to Global Competition
The US still retains a healthy lead, spending $806 billion on R&D, both public and private, in 2021, but China is rapidly closing the gap. The Chinese government recently announced a massive $52 billion investment in research and development for 2024 — a 10% surge over the previous year, while the U.S. cut total investment in research and development for fiscal 2024 by 2.7%.
China had significantly increased its R&D investment, contributing over 24 percent of total global funding according to data from the Congressional Research Service, while the U.S. total remains strong, CRS data show that its share of total global expenditure dropped to just under 31 percent in 2020, down from nearly 40 percent in 2000.
Realigning with National Priorities
AI, pandemic preparedness, cybersecurity, and advanced manufacturing require coordinated, interdisciplinary approaches that don’t always fit neatly into existing departmental structures or funding categories. Starting from zero would allow us to design funding mechanisms that better align with strategic priorities while preserving fundamental research.
A Practical Framework
Implementing zero-based budgeting for the STEM enterprise could be approached systematically:
Phase 1: Comprehensive Mapping Begin by mapping the current research ecosystem—funding flows, personnel, infrastructure, outputs, and outcomes. This alone would be valuable, as we currently lack a complete picture of resource allocation.
Phase 2: Goal Setting Involve stakeholders in defining desired outcomes. What should American STEM research accomplish in the next 10-20 years? How do we balance basic research with applied research?
Phase 3: Pilot Implementation Rather than overhauling everything at once, implement zero-based approaches in specific domains or regions to identify what works while minimizing disruption.
Potential Benefits and Risks
A thoughtful application could yield improved efficiency by eliminating redundant processes, better alignment with national priorities, enhanced collaboration across institutional silos, and increased agility to respond to emerging threats.
However, any major reform involves significant risks. There’s danger of disrupting productive research programs, alienating talented researchers, or creating unintended bureaucratic complications. The political and logistical challenges would be immense.
Moreover, China has now surpassed the US in “STEM talent production, research publications, patents, and knowledge-and technology-intensive manufacturing”, suggesting that while spending matters, other factors are equally important.
Preserving What Works
Zero-based budgeting shouldn’t mean discarding what has made American research successful. The peer review system has generally identified quality research. The tradition of investigator-initiated research has fostered creativity and serendipitous discoveries. The partnership between universities, government, and industry has created a dynamic innovation ecosystem.
The goal isn’t elimination but examination of whether these elements are being implemented most effectively.
Conclusion
The idea of applying zero-based budgeting to American STEM research deserves serious consideration. By questioning assumptions, eliminating inefficiencies, and realigning priorities, we can create a research enterprise better positioned to tackle 21st-century challenges.
The process itself—careful examination of how we conduct and fund research—could be as valuable as specific reforms. In an era when Based on current enrollment patterns, China is projected to produce more than 77,000 STEM PhD graduates per year compared to approximately 40,000 in the United States by 2025, representing nearly double the US output., the ability to thoughtfully reimagine our institutions may be our greatest asset.
The question isn’t whether we can afford to undertake such a comprehensive review. The question is whether we can afford not to.
Discoverers and Discoveries 