Some charts for those who don't know the extent of the US public (and private) investment in research (particularly in biomedical research) compared to other countries and institutions. The destruction of the US' scientific institutions has global implications.

In his Article, @dtraficonte.bsky.social offers the first comprehensive analysis of government research, examining its institutional design, comparative advantages, and normative justifications, and situating it as an indispensable paradigm within the national innovation system.

Excited that my new article is now out in the @yalelawjournal.bsky.social! The article takes a look at intramural research (R&D funded and performed by the government) from an innovation law perspective: yalelawjournal.org/article/gove...

In my review of Dan Wang's Breakneck, I argue that China’s trajectory looks less unique—and less puzzling—when viewed through the lens of the developmental state, a framework long used to explain the (also building-heavy) rise of Japan and Korea. www.valueadded.tech/p/is-china-a...

The ongoing denigration of expertise, science, and the research enterprise will have both short- and long-term costs for human health and lives

See this chart for one stark example: NIH funding has dramatically slowed down. Grant awards are down *$3 billion* so far, compared to same time period last year I asked the White House to explain. “This is not a researcher entitlement program,” said an official, defending their new approach.

A major advantage of state-sponsored science — particularly in-house government R&D — is (or was?) the avoidance of the low-risk short-termism of corporate research

Trump admin may think corporate R&D alone can maintain national tech competitiveness — a pre-WW2 idea that every country with the means to do so has since abandoned

We could add to @quinnslobodian.com’s analogy Trump’s gutting of state capacity — SA is famously reliant on outside “experts” from McKinsey et al for any and all major decisions