Prof. Emeritus Kerry Emanuel speaks with WBUR reporters Vivian La and Barbara Moran about the impact of NOAA cuts on the future of weather forecasting. “They're cutting into bone and muscle when they should be cutting into fat,” says Emanuel. He adds that streamlining operations and saving money “requires deep understanding of the organization and deep consultation with people who understand it.”
Writing for Foreign Affairs, President Emeritus L. Rafael Reif makes the case that “on the battlefield of technology, Americans must both continue to do what they do best and find new ways to improve competitiveness.” Reif explores the United States’ rich history of creating foundational technologies, innovation that frequently stems from research universities. Reif emphasizes: “To avert scientific and technological stagnation, the United States must significantly increase public investments in university-based research, ensure that it capitalizes on discoveries that emerge from academia, and devise sensible immigration policies that allow the world’s best students to study and then work in the United States.”
Prof. David Autor speaks with Rogé Karma from The Atlantic about the role of tariffs in the American manufacturing industry. “Letting free trade rip is an easy policy,” says Autor. “Putting up giant tariffs is an easy policy. Figuring out some middle path is hard. Deciding what sectors to invest in and protect is hard. Doing the work to build new industries is hard. But this is how great nations lead.”
Writing for The New York Times, MIT Innovation Fellow Brian Deese explains the impact of tariffs and domestic policy on the American auto industry. Deese notes that current policies “risk leaving U.S. automakers isolated and incapable of competing on their own merits as foreign companies bolt ahead. The damage to our economy and national security could be profound.”
Deborah Blum, director of the Knight Science Journalism Program, writes for The New York Times about the history and future of food safety programs in the U.S. “The United States clearly still needs the safety systems that were so painstakingly built over the last 120 years, and to make them better and stronger,” writes Blum. “The labs and scientists and inspection teams that have been recently lost should not only be restored but expanded. And the mistakes of the 19th century should stay firmly in the history books.”
Prof. Simon Johnson joins CNBC’s Squawk Box to discuss the potential impact of U.S. tariffs on the global economy.
Writing for Science, Prof. Fiona Murray and Research Affiliate Stefan Raff-Heinen underscore the necessity of federal investment in university research, noting that “without sustained federal support, the country risks losing its technological edge, threatening economic competitiveness and national security.” Murray and Raff-Heinen write: “Translational research funding is crucial for moving discoveries and early-stage technologies from labs to real-world applications. Government support gives scientists the time to refine nascent technologies, which can be a long and uncertain process. But this approach has had substantial payoffs.”
Ben Armstrong, executive director of the MIT Industrial Performance Center, speaks with Marketplace reporter Samantha Fields about the impact of tariffs on manufacturing in the U.S. “Things like magnets, which are really critical for batteries and other core electronic technologies, we’ve really lost the capacity to build in the U.S.” Armstrong adds that it’s possible to build that capacity here, but “it takes a long time, and it takes really significant investment,” likely from the government and from companies.
Writing for The Wall Street Journal, Sloan Senior Lecturer Robert Pozen highlights the impact of U.S. tariffs on foreign investment in U.S. Treasury securities and U.S. corporate bonds. “Nevertheless, since target countries will want to respond to reciprocal tariffs, they may stop buying or even sell U.S. debt securities,” explains Pozen. “Either response would increase U.S. interest rates and decrease economic growth. International trade flows and international investing are two sides of the same street.”
Writing for The New York Times, Prof. Catherine Wolfram and Columbia Prof. Glenn Hubbard make the case that to help end the war between Russia and Ukraine, the U.S. should “impose sanctions on any company or individual – in any country – involved in a Russian oil and gas sale.” They write: “Ideally, the policy would pressure Russia into negotiations, where its removal could be part of a deal. If not, the United States would still collect billions annually, which could help fund Mr. Trump’s proposed tax cuts.”
Prof. Jeffrey Harris speaks with Newsweek reporter Jasmine Laws about how a recession could impact Medicare. "A recession could impact many critical decisions of federal lawmakers, private insurers, healthcare providers, and patients,” says Harris. “The U.S. Congress may decide to let stand the Medicare physician payment cut that became effective on January 1 of this year. Reduced physician payments under conventional Medicare may cause doctors, hospitals and other providers to shift their resources toward the care of younger, commercially insured patients."
Prof. Jonathan Gruber speaks with GBH All Things Considered news anchor Judie Yuill to address recession concerns. “I think the important takeaway I have is that the real risks for our nation are not really short term, they’re long term,” explains Gruber. “We are a knowledge, investment and innovation-based economy. That’s what made America great for 80 years. The base of that innovation — the base of this knowledge economy — is our world-leading universities. If we start cutting them, we’re going to pay a long-run price in terms of our ability to grow as a nation.”
Prof. Jonathan Gruber speaks with WCVB reporter Jackie DeFusco about the role of tariffs on manufacturing jobs in the United States. "Regardless of where the tariffs end up, the fact they're moving around so much is going to lower hiring,” says Gruber. “Whether the tariffs end up raising or lowering hiring once they're locked in, I think it is unclear.”
Writing for the Financial Times, Prof. Abhijit Banerjee and Prof. Esther Duflo highlight the importance of foreign aid. “Reaffirming the most basic principle of aid would provide clarity,” they write. “The goal should be to invest in projects that will have the largest impact on the quality of life of poor people around the world. Saving lives during environmental catastrophes qualifies, as does financing global public goods such as vaccinations or epidemic control. Helping local actors to learn from each other and adopt the most effective ways to fight poverty can also have enormous benefits, even if this sounds a bit vague. That is because any aid money invested can then be spent in the best way possible.”
Writing for The Boston Globe, Prof. Pierre Azoulay and Prof. Jeffrey Flier of Harvard Medical School make the case that any reforms at the NIH “should be grounded in evidence rather than tradition, avoiding the influence of special interests or political considerations.” They add that this approach “is an acknowledgement of NIH’s accomplishments and a charge to adapt it to the new realities of 21st-century science. The overarching goal must be to secure and enhance the decades-long role of the United States at the forefront of biomedical research, an outcome that the public both wants and deserves.”