Running Government Like a Business? Think Again.

Hearing corporate leaders say, “The government should operate like a business," isn’t new, but the slogan has gained new significance with Elon Musk and Donald Trump promoting aggressive reforms. Now, Silicon Valley’s "move fast and break things" mentality has taken hold. While these statements may resonate with those frustrated by bureaucratic inefficiencies, enacting such approaches can lead to significant challenges and serious unintended consequences.

The Pitfalls of "Move Fast and Break Things"

Using the blunt instrument of mass terminations and freezing previously approved funding suggests that rapidly dismantling existing structures and addressing issues as they arise is an effective strategy. We’re being told that embracing a "fail fast" mentality – where rapid iteration and acceptance of failure contribute to innovation – is the solution to fixing a bloated government. However, this approach can lead to chaos and instability, particularly within complex systems like government. Interruptions in government services and commitments can cause widespread and severe hardships, affecting millions of lives and national stability. 

Musk, appointed (not vetted or confirmed) to lead the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has launched swift and widespread cuts to the federal workforce. (Fearing a legal battle over challenges to Musk’s authority, on Feb. 18, White House official Joshua Fisher stated, “Mr. Musk is not the U.S. DOGE Service Administrator.”) In a recent press conference, Musk described federal employees as an "unelected" branch of government and defended DOGE's secretive operations. These actions have led to the termination of nearly 85,000 government workers – about 3% of America's 2.3 million civil servants – crippling essential services like veterans affairs, nuclear security, and tax administration. Critics argue that these cuts vilify dedicated civil servants and undermine the government’s ability to fund essential services, support public health, and fund vital research.

The aggressive downsizing has elevated national security risks. Musk’s influence now extends to critical government IT infrastructures managed by a wide range of government departments, raising concerns about the integrity and security of federal systems. Despite court orders and numerous warnings about insider threats posed by Musk’s appointees, enforcement remains uncertain, leaving essential government functions vulnerable.

Why the Government Shouldn't Run Like a Business

The idea that the government should function like a business is a common refrain among some business leaders. However, this viewpoint overlooks essential differences between public governance and private enterprise.

In his book Time to Get Tough, Donald Trump asserts that business experience can translate into governmental success, suggesting that corporate strategies can effectively address governmental challenges.

However, governments are designed to serve the public interest. They address issues that are not always profitable but are essential for societal well-being, such as public safety, education, and infrastructure. Applying business principles focused on profit and efficiency can undermine these essential services.

Furthermore, businesses operate under different accountability structures. While a company answers to its shareholders, a government is accountable to its citizens, requiring transparency, equity, and adherence to democratic processes. DOGE's sweeping budget cuts and agency closures have already sparked legal battles, with opponents arguing that such actions bypass congressional oversight and erode democratic checks and balances.

The Founding Fathers warned against rash governmental overhauls. James Madison, in The Federalist Papers, cautioned: "The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished." Madison argued that a well-functioning government requires careful deliberation rather than reckless disruption.

When one of his rockets blows up, Musk refers to it as a “rapid unscheduled disassembly.” We’re witnessing the government being blown apart and disassembled right now, right before our eyes, to the dismay of millions of Americans and to the delight of our adversaries.

Reframing the Message in the Fight for Research Funding

In the push to increase “government efficiency,” many of our elected—and unelected—leaders are equating cuts with savings. In the case of research, they could not be more mistaken, and it will cost us dearly.

The United States has long been a global leader in biomedical and technological innovation, a position driven by significant federal investments in research and development. However, under the new Administration, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) recently announced a policy that caps indirect cost rates at 15% for all grants. If the court challenges fail, the new rule will replace previously negotiated rates, which often ranged from 25% to over 50%, with some institutions, such as Harvard University, having rates as high as 69%. 

Indirect costs, essential for maintaining research infrastructure, staffing, and resources, are not simply bureaucratic expenses; they form the backbone of America’s innovation ecosystem. Dr. Richard Huganir, the director of the Department of Neuroscience at Johns Hopkins University, characterized the cuts as "the apocalypse of American science," warning that they could lead to job losses and hinder future scientific discoveries. If we permit the gutting of the NIH and other scientific agencies, we risk falling behind in the global innovation race.

America’s leadership in science and medicine has never been an accident; it’s the result of decades of investment in research and innovation. Cutting funding under the pretext of fiscal responsibility is not only shortsighted but also economically and strategically self-destructive.

A Quick Look at a Few Facts

There are piles of data about the positive impact of basic and translational research. They include:

• Science Drives Economic Growth and Job Creation. The Human Genome Project, for example, had a $141 return for every $1 invested, contributing nearly $1 trillion to the economy and laying the foundation for modern genomics-based medicine.

• National Security Depends on Scientific Leadership. Research in biotechnology, cybersecurity, and quantum computing is critical to maintaining military and economic dominance. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) funded the early development of the internet, GPS, and artificial intelligence—technologies that now underpin both commercial and defense industries.

• China Is Significantly Increasing its R&D Expenditure. It is on pace to surpass the U.S. in R&D spending, with China’s global share rising by 22% and the U.S. share declining by 8% from 2000 to 2023.

• Cutting Research Costs More in the Long Run. One of the most misguided assumptions about cutting science funding is that it will reduce government spending. In reality, preventative research saves billions in healthcare and emergency response costs. CDC data show vaccination programs save $10 for every $1 invested by preventing costly hospitalizations and lost productivity.

• Science Funding Benefits Every State and District. Science funding isn’t a partisan issue—it benefits communities across the country. NIH and NSF grants support universities, hospitals, and biotech firms in both urban and rural districts, creating high-paying jobs and fostering innovation hubs.

Science funding used to enjoy broad bipartisan support. Even prominent conservative voices have recognized the value of research funding. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich once called cutting medical research “irrational conservatism,” emphasizing that funding the NIH is one of the best ways to reduce long-term healthcare costs and improve national well-being.

Reframing the Debate

What should be determined by hard facts is now challenged by personal beliefs. Hyper-partisanship has widened divisions and built barriers to the point where facts matter less and opinions matter more. Maybe it’s time for a new approach.

Cognitive linguist George Lakoff emphasizes the power of framing in shaping public perception. He argues that how issues are presented dramatically influences how they are understood and acted upon. So, here’s a thought:

Instead of discussing science funding as government "spending," we should frame it as an investment in America's future—one that brings substantial economic, security, and health benefits. We could begin with messaging around:

• Public-Private Partnerships: Numerous biotech startups and Fortune 500 companies depend on federally funded research to catalyze innovation and create value.

• Fiscal Responsibility: Preventative research saves taxpayer dollars by reducing emergency healthcare costs and economic losses from preventable diseases.

• Global Competitiveness: Investing in research ensures the U.S. remains a leader in medical and technological advancements rather than ceding ground to China or other competitors.

Moving from Messaging to Mobilizing

With federal research funding at risk, advocacy must move beyond words to action. Scientists, healthcare professionals, business leaders, and the public all have a role to play in ensuring continued investment in innovation, economic growth, and public health. Here are a few ways you can get involved:

1. Engage with Policymakers: Lawmakers respond to constituent concerns, so make your voice heard. Contact your representatives—especially those on the House and Senate Appropriations Committees—to emphasize the economic, national security, and health benefits of research funding.

• Find your House representative: house.gov
• Find your Senators: senate.gov
• See who serves on the House Appropriations Committee 
• See who serves on the Senate Appropriations Committee

2. Participate in Science Advocacy Groups: Organizations dedicated to research advocacy offer resources, coordinated campaigns, and direct lobbying opportunities.

• American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
• Research!America
• Coalition for Life Sciences (CLS)

3. Share Your Stories: Public awareness can influence policymaker decisions. If you have stories to share, use social media, blogs, or community forums to highlight how research funding impacts patients, businesses, and scientific progress. Add hashtags like #FundScience, #ResearchMatters, and #InvestInInnovation to amplify your message.

4. Attend Town Halls and Public Meetings: Legislators frequently hold town halls—either in person or online—to engage with constituents. Participating in these events and posing relevant questions about research funding can encourage them to prioritize science in budget conversations. Check the dates and times through the offices of your elected officials.

Leaders and policymakers who genuinely care about America’s health, global competitiveness, national security, and long-term economic stability should regard science funding not as a cost, but as one of the most powerful investments we can make for our future.