How the U.S. became a science superpower

China’s rise and U.S. retreat in key fields

• Several researchers report that, in some areas (e.g., radar), Chinese papers have gone from weak imitations to being the cutting edge; “new ideas” are often pre-empted by Chinese teams.
• China is actively recruiting with high salaries and large startup packages; some commenters describe direct offers to run labs there.
• Many see current U.S. cuts (especially under DOGE / the current administration) as accelerating a loss of leadership just as China’s ecosystem matures.

Indirect cost reimbursement and university overhead

• The article’s claim that indirect cost reimbursement was “secret sauce” is fiercely debated.
• Defenders say overhead pays for facilities, shared equipment, compliance, and staff; without it, labs can’t function and top researchers will leave. Rates are described as negotiated and relatively small in macro budget terms.
• Critics argue universities are bloated, can accept lower-overhead private grants, and need more transparency. They propose caps on overhead and public budgets; others respond that private grants are subsidized by full‑overhead federal grants and are a small fraction of total funding.

Brain drain, researcher mobility, and politics

• Multiple comments note increasing moves from U.S. institutions to EU or Asian ones, driven by funding uncertainty and political hostility toward science and academia.
• Some see current ideological attacks (e.g., on elite universities, DEI, “viewpoint diversity”) as analogous to historical purges of academics by authoritarian regimes.

Debt, taxes, and whether cuts are fiscally rational

• One camp argues U.S. debt and interest costs are becoming unsustainable, so all programs—including research—must be on the table.
• Others counter that R&D is a tiny share of spending, has high long‑run ROI, and cutting it is like “shaving your head to lose weight.” They point instead to tax cuts, military spending, and unwillingness to tax high wealth.
• There is deep disagreement over whether “tax the rich” can meaningfully fix the deficit, and over how much blame belongs to social programs vs. wars and tax policy.

Models of science funding and broader history

• Some think the U.S. advantage is less about one mechanism and more about: post‑WWII wealth and intact industry, decentralized funding through universities, integration with private industry, and massive talent inflows (including via Operation Paperclip).
• Britain’s centralized lab model and postwar austerity are cited as cautionary, but commenters dispute how much current U.S. problems really resemble Britain in 1945.