After World War II, under the influence (direct and indirect) of people like Vannevar Bush, a "grand bargain" was effectively struck between the US government and the nation's universities.  The war had demonstrated how important science and engineering research could be, through the Manhattan Project and the development of radar, among other things.  University researchers had effectively and sometimes literally been conscripted into the war effort.  In the postwar period, with more citizens than ever going to college because of the GI Bill, universities went through a period of rapid growth, and the government began funding research at universities on the large scale.  This was a way of accomplishing multiple goals.  This funding got hundreds of scientists and engineers to work on projects that advisors and the academic community itself (through peer review) thought would be important but perhaps were of such long-term or indirect economic impact that industry would be unlikely to support them.  It trained the next generation of researchers and of the technically skilled workforce.  It accomplished this as a complement to national laboratories and direct federal agency work. After Sputnik, there was an enormous ramp-up of investment.  This figure (see here for an interactive version) shows different contributions to investment in research and development in the US from 1953 through 2021: Figure from NSF report on US R&D investment  A couple of days ago, the New York Times published a related figure, showing the growth in dollars of total federal funds sent to US universities, but I think this is a more meaningful graph (hat tip to Prof. Elizabeth Popp Berman at Michigan for her discussion of this).  In 2021, federal investment in research (the large majority of which is happening at universities) as a percentage of GDP was at its lowest level since 1953, and it was sinking further even before this year (for those worried about US competitiveness....  Also, industry does a lot more D than they do long-term R.). There are many studies by economists showing that federal investment in research has a large return (for example, here is one by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas saying that returns to the US economy on federal research expenditures are between 150% and 300%).  Remember, these funds are not just given to universities - they are in the form of grants and contracts, for which specific work is done and reported.   These investments also helped make US higher education the envy of much of the world and led to education of international students as a tremendous effective export business for the country. Of course, like any system created organically by people, there are problems.  Universities are complicated and full of (ugh) academics.  Higher education is too expensive.  Compliance bureaucracy can be onerous.  Any deliberative process like peer review trades efficiency for collective expertise but also the hazards of group-think.  At the same time, the relationship between federally sponsored research and universities has led to an enormous amount of economic, technological, and medical benefit over the last 70 years. Right now it looks like this whole apparatus is being radically altered, if not dismantled in part or in whole.  Moreover, this is not happening as a result of a debate or discussion about the proper role and scale of federal spending at universities, or an in-depth look at the flaws and benefits of the historically developed research ecosystem.  It's happening because "elections have consequences", and I'd be willing to bet that very very few people in the electorate cast their votes even secondarily because of this topic.   Sincere people can have differing opinions about these issues, but decisions of such consequence and magnitude should not be taken lightly or incidentally.   (I am turning off comments on this one b/c I don't have time right now to pay close attention.  Take it as read that some people would comment that US spending must be cut back and that this is a consequence.)

The Scientia Institute at Rice sponsors series of public lectures annually, centered around a theme.  The intent is to get a wide variety of perspectives spanning across the humanities, social sciences, arts, sciences, and engineering, presented in an accessible way.  The youtube channel with recordings of recent talks is here. This past year, the theme was "democracy" in its broadest sense.  I was honored to be invited last year to contribute a talk, which I gave this past Tuesday, following a presentation by my CS colleague Rodrigo Ferreira about whether AI has politics.  Below I've embedded the video, with the start time set where I begin (27:00, so you can rewind to see Rodrigo).   Which (macroscopic) states of matter to we see?  The ones that "win the popular vote" of the microscopic configurations.

Many things have been happening in and around US science.  This is a non-exhaustive list of recent developments and links: There have been very large scale personnel cuts across HHS, FDA, CDC, NIH - see here.  This includes groups like the people who monitor lead in drinking water.   There is reporting about the upcoming presidential budget requests about NASA and NOAA.  The requested cuts are very deep.  To quote Eric Berger's article linked above, for the science part of NASA, "Among the proposals were: A two-thirds cut to astrophysics, down to $487 million; a greater than two-thirds cut to heliophysics, down to $455 million; a greater than 50 percent cut to Earth science, down to $1.033 billion; and a 30 percent cut to Planetary science, down to $1.929 billion."  The proposed cuts to NOAA are similarly deep, seeking to end climate study in the agency, as Science puts it. The full presidential budget request, including NSF, DOE, NIST, etc. is still to come.  Remember, Congress in the past has often essentially ignored presidential budget requests.  It is unclear if the will exists to do so now.  Speaking of NSF, the graduate research fellowship program award announcements for this year came out this past week.  The agency awarded slightly under half as many of these prestigious 3-year fellowships as in each of the last 15 years.  I can only presume that this is because the agency is deeply concerned about its budgets for the next couple of fiscal years. Grants are being frozen at several top private universities - these include Columbia (new cancellations), the University of Pennsylvania (here), Harvard (here), Northwestern and Cornell (here), and Princeton (here).  There are various law suits filed about all of these.  Princeton and Harvard have been borrowing money (issuing bonds) to partly deal with the disruption as litigation continues.  The president of Princeton has been more vocal than many about this. There has been a surge in visa revocations and unannounced student status changes in SEVIS for international students in the US.  To say that this is unsettling is an enormous understatement.  See here for a limited discussion.  There seems to be deep reluctance for universities to speak out about this, presumably from the worry that saying the wrong thing will end up placing their international students and scholars at greater exposure. On Friday evening, the US Department of Energy put out a "policy flash", stating that indirect cost rates on its grants would be cut immediately to 15%.  This sounds familiar.  Legal challenges are undoubtedly beginning.   Added bonus:  According to the Washington Post, DOGE (whatever they say they are this week) is now in control of grants.gov, the website that posts funding opportunities.  As the article says, "Now the responsibility of posting these grant opportunities is poised to rest with DOGE — and if its employees delay those postings or stop them altogether, 'it could effectively shut down federal-grant making,' said one federal official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal operations."   None of this is good news for the future of science and engineering research in the US.  If you are a US voter and you think that university-based research is important, I encourage you to contact your legislators and make your opinions heard.   (As I have put in my profile, what I write here are my personal opinions; I am not in any way speaking for my employer.  That should be obvious, but it never hurts to state it explicitly.)

(A post summarizing recent US science-related events will be coming later.  For now, here is my promised post about multiferroics, inspired in part by a recent visit to Rice by Yoshi Tokura.) Electrons carry spins and therefore magnetic moments (that is, they can act in some ways like little bar magnets), and as I was teaching undergrads this past week, under certain conditions some of the electrons in a material can spontaneously develop long-range magnetic order.  That is, rather than being, on average, randomly oriented, instead below some critical temperature the spins take on a pattern that repeats throughout the material.  In the ordered state, if you know the arrangement of spins in one (magnetic) unit cell of the material, that pattern is repeated over many (perhaps all, if the system is a single domain) the unit cells.  In picking out this pattern, the overall symmetry of the material is lowered compared to the non-ordered state.  (There can be local moment magnets, when the electrons with the magnetic moments are localized to particular atoms; there can also be itinerant magnets, when the mobile electrons in a metal take on a net spin polarization.)  The most famous kind of magnetic order is ferromagnetism, when the magnetic moments spontaneously align along a particular direction, often leading to magnetic fields projected out of the material.    Magnetic materials can be metals, semiconductors, or insulators. In insulators, an additional kind of order is possible, based on electric polarization, \(\mathbf{P}\).  There is subtlety about defining polarization, but for the purposes of this discussion, the question is whether the atoms within each unit cell bond appropriately and are displaced below some critical temperature to create a net electric dipole moment, leading to ferroelectricity.  (Antiferroelectricity is also possible.) Again, the ordered state has lower symmetry than the non-ordered state.  Ferroelectric materials have some interesting applications.   BiFeO3, a multiferroic antiferromagnet, image from here. Multiferroics are materials that have simultaneous magnetic order and electric polarization order.  A good recent review is here.  For applications, obviously it would be convenient if both the magnetic and polarization ordering happened well above room temperature.  There can be deep connections between the magnetic order and the electric polarization - see this paper, and this commentary.   Because of these connections, the low energy excitations of multiferroics can be really complicated, like electromagnons.  Similarly, there can be combined "spin textures" and polarization textures in such materials - see here and here.   Multiferroics raise the possibility of using applied voltages (and hence electric fields) to flip \(\mathbf{P}\), and thus toggle around \(\mathbf{M}\).  This has been proposed as a key enabling capability for information processing devices, as in this approach.  These materials are extremely rich, and it feels like their full potential has not yet been realized.