Partisan disparities in the funding of science in the United States
Abstract
Republican lawmakers consistently provided robust federal funding, often exceeding Democrats.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Decisions about allocation of taxpayer dollars influence which scientific ideas receive support, which fields advance, and which investigators are able to initiate and sustain research programs.
“Through competitive grant programs at agencies such as the NSF and the NIH, decisions about the allocation of taxpayer dollars influence which scientific ideas receive support, which fields advance, and which investigators are able to initiate and sustain research programs (3–10).”
From The rise of large language models and the direction and impact of US federal research funding (2026) · cites this paper as [9]
The federal funding process plays a central role in shaping the direction, diversity, and long-run impact of the US scientific enterprise and the global research landscape.
“Thus, the federal funding process plays a central role in shaping the direction, diversity, and long-run impact of the US scientific enterprise and—given America’s scientific leadership—the global research landscape as well (3–10).”
From The rise of large language models and the direction and impact of US federal research funding (2026) · cites this paper as [9]
Cites
Dimensions: Bringing down barriers between scientometricians and data
Herzog, C., Hook, D., & Konkiel, S. (2020) · Quantitative Science Studies · doi:10.1162/qss_a_00020 · Cited by 219 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The rise of large language models and the direction and impact of US federal research funding
Qian, Y., Wen, Z., Furnas, A. C., Bai, Y., Shao, E., & Wang, D. (2026) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2601439123 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Furnas, A. C., Fishman, N., Rosenstiel, L., & Wang, D.
- Affiliations
- Northwestern University (US)
- Harvard University (US)
- Vanderbilt University (US)
- Venue
- Science
- Published
- 2025-09-18
- Volume
- 389
- Issue
- 6766
- Pages
- 1195-1200
- ISSN
- 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
- 1095-9203
- OpenAlex
- W4414321787
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5
- FWCI
- 18.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Science and Science Education
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Research, Science, and Academia
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health and Medical Research Impacts
- Keywords
- federal research funding, partisan differences, Republican legislators, science policy
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
