For just over a year, I’ve had the privilege of going back in time.
In March 2025, C&EN launched the chemistry history podcast Inflection Point. The premise of our show is to take listeners into the past—as literally as we can—to experience the unexpected, serendipitous moments in history that led to current-day technology. We’ve traced the critter-rich origins of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) drugs. We’ve explored the accidental breakthroughs that led to the proliferation of forever chemicals. We’ve journeyed through the humble beginnings of microplastics, quantum computing, and gene editing. And new episodes from our third season—which highlights the exceptional discoveries behind retinol, fusion power, recycling, and more—have just begun to come out.
What I’ve learned through our time travel—and what I hope our listeners have taken to heart—is that many technologies that we take for granted hinged on scientists just trying something. Scientists with a pie-in-the-sky hypothesis or an outlandish dream. Many of these people, who wanted to learn for the sake of learning, inadvertently changed the course of history.
Our work has shown me, beyond doubt, that modern society is built on a foundation laid by exploratory research, often driven by curiosity. This “basic research” should be revered. Instead, it’s under siege. Last year was a brutal one for science in the US—a whirlwind of canceled grants, layoffs, and researchers left uncertain about their futures. And the threats to science have since intensified. The White House’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2027 (PDF) calls to slash budgets for scientific research. If enacted, it would cut the budget of the National Science Foundation (NSF) by more than half; about a quarter of federal basic research funding for US colleges and universities comes from the NSF. It would also take $5 billion from the National Institutes of Health; 51% of NIH’s budget goes to funding basic research. Additionally, it calls to reduce NASA’s budget by nearly a quarter and would strip $3.4 billion from the science program specifically.
Over the years, scientists applying for funding have faced increasing pressure to describe what the impact of their research will be. But this demand clashes with a key aspect of curiosity-driven research: its impact can be determined only after the work is done.
We can’t say with certainty what future innovations we might be sabotaging by stripping funding for basic science. But what we can do is point—fervently and urgently—to our rich history of serendipitous discovery.
Because scientists thought to search for life in the inhospitable, boiling waters of Yellowstone National Park, they found an enzyme that can withstand the superhot temperatures needed for splitting DNA. That enzyme enabled polymerase chain reaction, a diagnostic tool society relied on during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Because researchers analyzed the venom of a desert-dwelling lizard, they identified the compound that became the first GLP-1 agonist approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. And because one man hung frog legs from his metal fence in an attempt to uncover what powers living things, Alessandro Volta gained the insight necessary to build the battery.
Susumu Kitagawa, the 2025 Nobel laureate who pioneered the field of metal-organic frameworks, often cites inspiration from an ancient Chinese philosopher (PDF) who considered “the usefulness of the useless.” While other chemists pursued dense, solid molecules, Kitagawa focused on the spaces created by the pores inside. Others thought his work to be useless. Today, people around the world use his porous molecules to capture carbon dioxide, remediate pollution, and harvest water from the air.
These are not isolated stories. Many of them are changing our lives to this day.
It is easy to look back now at these monumental findings and say that they deserved our support. But before setting off on these experiments, those scientists didn’t know what they would find. They could only promise persistence and curiosity. They pledged their lives to the pursuit of knowledge. And now, a new generation of scientists is waiting anxiously in the wings, asking for an opportunity to do the same.
Support for science is at an inflection point. We know that extraordinary breakthroughs are enabled by basic science; this lesson permeates our past. Now we must try to step into the future. When we sacrifice exploratory research, we don’t just sacrifice the present; we put pressure on our long-held aspiration of building a better world.
This editorial is the result of collective deliberation in C&EN. For this editorial, the lead contributor is Gina Vitale.
Views expressed are not necessarily those of ACS.
