Forget the glorious successes of past breakthroughs—the real justification for research investment is what we get for our money. Here’s what economists say.September 17, 2025Stephanie Arnett/MIT Technology Review | Getty, Envato MIT Technology Review Explains: Let our writers untangle the complex, messy world of technology to help you understand what’s coming next. You can read more from the series here. Given the draconian cuts to US federal funding for science, including the administration’s proposal to reduce the 2026 budgets of the National Institutes of Health by 40% and the National Science Foundation by 57%, it’s worth asking some hard-nosed money questions: How much should we be spending on R&D? How much value do we get out of such investments, anyway? To answer that, it’s important to look at both successful returns and investments that went nowhere. Sure, it’s easy to argue for the importance of spending on science by pointing out that many of today’s most useful technologies had their origins in government-funded R&D. The internet, CRISPR, GPS—the list goes on and on. All true. But this argument ignores all the technologies that received millions in government funding and haven’t gone anywhere—at least not yet. We still don’t have DNA computers or molecular electronics. Never mind the favorite examples cited by contrarian politicians of seemingly silly or frivolous science projects (think shrimp on treadmills). While cherry-picking success stories help illustrate the glories of innovation and the role of science in creating technologies that have changed our lives, it provides little guidance for how much we should spend in the future—and where the money should go.