Michael Kratsios | All In Summary

All-In Interview Summary

1. Key Themes

The Politicization of Science Peaked During COVID — and Damaged Public Trust Irreparably

Kratsios argues that science became dogma rather than inquiry, and that Fauci is the central figure responsible for this collapse of public trust. The administration views returning to first-principles scientific method as the core mission.

"I think over the last 15 or 20 years, I think science has been deeply and deeply politicized. And we no longer are asking sort of the very hard and important questions of, you know, what is a scientific method? How should we be approaching it? Should we be questioning some of these conclusions? And rather, I think it's been dominated by kind of this dogma. And I think it really crescendoed and peaked in COVID where suddenly, you know, there was a certain individual that if you didn't agree with what he said, then suddenly you're anti-science. And to me, I think that is the most anti-science conclusion you could ever make." 00:03:25

DEI Captured a Staggering Share of Science Funding — Roughly $8 Billion Over Four Years

This is not a fringe claim — it comes from a Senate committee analysis. Senator Ted Cruz's committee found that 25% of NSF grants during the Biden administration went to DEI-related "science," which Kratsios frames as the clearest example of politicization corrupting allocation.

"They found that roughly one quarter or 25% of grants at NSF during that time period went towards DEI-related, quote unquote, science. And if you think about that, that's an astronomical amount. That is roughly $2 billion a year times four years. That's $8 billion of science funding that went to these DEI-related initiatives. And that isn't science." 00:07:34

Science ROI Is Collapsing — Eroom's Law Is Real and the Government Has Never Audited It

NIH funding tripled from $14B in 1998 to $47B in 2024 with no proportional increase in breakthrough treatments. The administration is introducing "meta science" units — running experiments on how science itself is funded — as the first real audit of this system in 70+ years.

"We have not been innovative in any way on the way that we actually conduct the science. Whether it's at NIH or at NSF or at any of their other science agencies, the answer has always been let's just keep doing the same thing but add more money and hope that we get more outcomes proportionally rather than asking the harder questions about are there other ways that we could be conducting the science?" 00:15:01

The 1945 Vannevar Bush Framework Is Obsolete — the Public/Private R&D Ratio Has Completely Inverted

In 1945, government funded 70% of R&D and private sector 30%. Today it's reversed: private sector funds 70%, government 30%. Yet the system for deploying government science capital hasn't been updated to reflect this structural shift.

"What has happened over the last 70 years was there's been this dramatic shift. Now roughly 70% of R&D is done by the private sector and 30% is funded by the federal government. And the question now is, is that model that Bush pushed forward and promulgated and actually led to the great discoveries of the last 50 years, is that still as relevant today as it was then? And our answer is, it's not." 00:30:52

The US Is Actively Destroying Its Own STEM Pipeline Through DEI-Driven Policy

Programs that encouraged gifted and talented students in high schools and middle schools to pursue STEM were actively defunded. Advanced algebra was removed from San Francisco schools. UC Berkeley dropped SAT requirements and now runs remedial math for incoming students.

"I think one thing that I discovered kind of in writing this book and this report was, you know, we used to have programs at National Science Foundation that would actually support and encourage gifted and talented students in American high schools and middle schools. Those were stopped. For some reason, encouraging high-performing young students to pursue STEM in America was something that an actual decision was made of the government to no longer fund that." 00:41:43

China's Real Advantage Is Cost Efficiency Per Dollar, Not Just Raw Spending

Kratsios and the host surface that China may generate 2x to 10x more scientific output per dollar due to lower labor costs, automation, and supply chain advantages — meaning China's effective science budget may vastly exceed its nominal parity with the US.

"By some estimates, they get 2x for every dollar they put in. By some estimates, 4x. By some estimates, 10x. Because their labor costs are lower. They have much more automation. Their supply chain costs are lower." 00:38:21

The Administration Has Set Concrete, Time-Bound Moonshot Targets Across Multiple Domains

These are not vague aspirations — they are specific deliverables: moon base elements by 2030, nuclear reactor in space by 2028, scientifically relevant quantum computer by 2028, fusion energy by 2035, and doubling US scientific output via AI (the "Genesis Mission").

"We said we're going to have a nuclear reactor in space by 28. We're going to have the first elements of a moon base by 2030. These are like big, bold bets that take a decade to accomplish and we're going to do it. I think the second is around quantum computing... one of the key goals there that we're trying to do is create a scientifically relevant quantum computer by 2028." 00:23:20

The Median Age of an NIH Intramural Researcher Is 71 — the Scientific Workforce Is Geriatric

This is perhaps the most alarming operational fact in the entire conversation. The pipeline of young scientists entering government research has effectively collapsed.

"The statistic that is most alarming for me, which was Jay Bhattacharya, the director of NIH, shared with me was that the median age of an intramural researcher at NIH is 71 years old." 00:49:32

The US Competitive Advantage Is Its Decentralized, Market-Based Science Ecosystem — Not Central Planning

Kratsios makes the case that China's centralized model is actually a weakness, pointing to their failure to solve EUV lithography despite it being their single most important national priority since 2019 export controls.

"They have been trying to essentially figure out how to do EUV lithography since we put the export controls in 2019. No breakthrough has happened. There's nothing more important to their economy than solving that scientific problem and haven't been able to do that." 00:27:51

2. Contrarian Perspectives

Increasing Science Funding Is Not the Same as Supporting Science — and Lobbying for More Budget Is Anti-Scientific

The conventional view is that cutting or redirecting science budgets is "anti-science." Kratsios argues the opposite: blindly advocating for budget increases without asking whether the money is well-spent is itself a failure of scientific thinking.

"If you talk to sort of your median lobbyists for the science community, the only thing that they are fixated on is singularly is the research and development budget. If the number doesn't go up, then they haven't done their job and they haven't, quote unquote, supported science. And to me, that's a question. But the more important question that every scientist should be asking is, is the way that the U.S. government spends at $200 billion in S&T funding every year, is it actually driving the best breakthroughs and biggest breakthroughs of American people?" 00:04:39

A Fragmented, Competing Multi-Agency Science System Is a Feature, Not a Bug

Most observers see DARPA sitting in DoD, NSF separate from NIH, DOE running national labs, and call it bureaucratic chaos. Kratsios argues this competition and separation is exactly what makes the US system innovative — and that China's failure on EUV despite full centralized focus proves the point.

"I honestly think it's a feature and it's not a bug. And I think the alternative to an extreme is kind of what the PRC or what China is doing. And there you have sort of a top-down, directed, sort of single agency entity that sets priorities and tries to execute." 00:27:25

The RCP 8.5 Climate Scenario — the Basis for Nearly All Alarming Climate Coverage — Has Been Quietly Abandoned by the IPCC

This is arguably the most politically explosive factual claim in the episode. The most extreme climate scenario underpinning decades of media coverage and funding decisions was withdrawn because it lacked scientific integrity — yet questioning it publicly even two years ago would have gotten you labeled anti-science.

"They determined a few months ago that they could not, with any scientific integrity, substantiate continuing to have this scenario play out. So they had to pull it down... yet every media report of every climate assessment over the last 20 years has always focused on the extreme example." 00:09:15

Fauci Did More Damage to Science Than Anyone in Modern History

The conventional view lionizes Fauci as a defender of science under political attack. Kratsios argues the inverse — that Fauci's authoritarian posture toward scientific inquiry caused a generational collapse in public trust in science that will take years to repair.

"He did more disservice to science than anyone in modern history. You know, when he is advocating for positions like, you know, students need to be masked in schools... no regular median American can listen to that and then take science seriously." 00:45:37

Government Should Have Strong Opinions About Scientific Priorities — the "All Discovery Science Is Good" View Is Wrong

The scientific community broadly holds that government should fund science without directing it. Kratsios explicitly rejects this, arguing elected officials and the executive branch should set a thesis about national priorities and direct funding accordingly.

"Many sort of people believe that, you know, all discovery science is good and you should have no opinion about what's important. And I think we would say, like, no, we disagree. Like, the government is a set of elected individuals... And the executive branch should have some sort of thesis about what's important for the country." 00:31:49

3. Companies Identified

Google DeepMind

Leading AI research lab, subsidiary of Alphabet. Mentioned because Demis Hassabis, its CEO, won a Nobel Prize and represents a rare modern example of a scientist achieving celebrity status — the kind of figure who could help rebuild public trust in science.

"If you think of someone like Demis, for example, at Google that, you know, has won a Nobel Prize." 00:44:33

4. People Identified

Vannevar Bush

Science advisor to FDR, architect of the modern US science funding system. His 1945 document Science, the Endless Frontier created the framework of government funding basic research at universities — a framework Kratsios argues is now 70 years obsolete.

"Vannevar Bush, who was sort of a science advisor, had my role for FDR, received a letter from the president that asked him, you know, what do we do with the science enterprise post-World War II? And Vannevar Bush wrote his response that became Science England's Frontier, which is kind of the seminal work in the way that the U.S. government should interface with science community." 00:29:56

Jay Bhattacharya

Director of NIH. Mentioned for sharing the alarming statistic about NIH's aging intramural research workforce (median age 71), signaling a coming overhaul of how NIH recruits and supports younger scientists.

"Jay Bhattacharya, the director of NIH, shared with me was that the median age of an intramural researcher at NIH is 71 years old." 00:49:32

Demis Hassabis

CEO of Google DeepMind, Nobel Prize winner. Cited as a rare modern scientist with the stature to be a public face of science — though even he faces the headwind of broad anti-AI sentiment.

"If you think of someone like Demis, for example, at Google that, you know, has won a Nobel Prize." 00:44:33

Russ Vought

Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Co-authored with Kratsios the annual R&D priorities memo that operationalizes the Science: A New Golden Age report across all federal agencies.

"Russ Vogt, who's the OMB director, the budget director, and myself, we wrote our annual R&D priorities memo. And in that memo, we essentially list out kind of what are the priorities administration and how individual agencies should write their budgets to map to those research priorities." 00:50:57

Senator Ted Cruz

US Senator, Chair of a Senate committee that conducted an analysis of NSF grants during the Biden administration and found that approximately 25% went to DEI-related initiatives — roughly $8 billion over four years. This analysis is the empirical backbone of the administration's NSF grant terminations.

"Senator Ted Cruz and the committee in the Senate did an analysis of the grants that were given during the Biden administration. And they found that roughly one quarter or 25% of grants at NSF during that time period went towards DEI-related, quote unquote, science." 00:07:07

Stuart Butterfield

Co-founder of Slack. Cited as an analogy for funding individuals over ideas in science — Butterfield pivoted from a failing game to an internal chat tool with $3M left and built a $30B business, illustrating how backing great people matters more than backing specific ideas.

"Stuart Butterfield, who started Slack, and he was working on a totally different business. He had three million left. He told the investors, should I give the money back? But by the way, we built a communication tool that we use on our engineering team... And then it turned into Slack. And they sold it for $30 billion." 00:20:16

Anthony Fauci

Former Director of NIAID. Mentioned as the single individual most responsible for the collapse of public trust in science, by using his authority to shut down scientific inquiry rather than encourage it.

"He did more disservice to science than anyone in modern history." 00:45:37

Doug Wright (Secretary Wright)

Referenced as "Secretary Wright" — serves as the administration's primary spokesperson on climate science policy, publicly articulating the distinction between acknowledging climate change and rejecting the "climate emergency" framing.

"Secretary Wright has been very vocal on this and kind of serves as the belly button for a lot of these issues of the administration and what he has advocated for very publicly and has said many, many times is that, yes, the climate is changing... The thing that is not true and what the data does not support is that it is a climate emergency." 00:08:49

5. Operating Insights

The "Golden Ticket" Grant Model — Give Individual Reviewers Unilateral Power to Fund Outlier Ideas

The standard peer review committee creates pressure toward consensus, which systematically kills bold ideas. Denmark tested a model where each reviewer gets one to three "golden tickets" to unilaterally approve a grant without committee agreement. This has two compounding effects: it funds wilder ideas AND attracts better reviewers who want the unilateral power.

"Each of the evaluators are going to be given one or two or three golden tickets... the reviewer will then be able to unilaterally, without the rest of the committee agreeing, can make a selection of a particular grant. So you incentivize folks to have more interesting grants. But I think what's also kind of cool about this concept is that you're actually incentivizing better people to participate in the boards because they have a golden ticket now." 00:17:25

Match Grant Duration to the Idea — Stop Forcing Everything Into an 18-Month Box

NSF grants have defaulted to 18-month durations by institutional inertia, not scientific logic. The administration is testing fast-track 6-month grants (prove it works, then apply for more) alongside multi-year 3–5 year grants for longer-horizon ideas. The operating insight: artificial time constraints on funding cycles kill both quick-validate opportunities and long-horizon moonshots.

"Not all research ideas don't require 18 months. Some of them require three months or six months. Some of them require five years... another thing we're going to be testing and we proposed in New Golden Age was this idea of different durations of grants and allowing there to be opportunities for people to try fast track grants where they have an idea that can be done in six months." 00:19:21

Run Meta-Experiments on Your Own Capital Allocation Before Assuming the System Works

The administration is setting up "meta science" units at both NSF and NIH to actually run controlled experiments on grant-making itself — testing whether different methods of deploying capital produce better scientific outcomes. For any organization allocating significant capital across a portfolio, this is the operating principle: treat your own investment process as a hypothesis to be tested.

"We're setting up meta science units both at NSF and at NIH where we're actually going to start running experiments. Maybe there are different ways that we should be doing funding. And then we can analyze those and then course correct and direct money towards places where innovation is actually occurring." 00:16:24

6. Overlooked Insights

The STEM PhD Inversion Is a National Security Crisis That Nobody Is Treating As One

Kratsios mentions almost in passing that 30 years ago, 70% of US computer science PhD recipients were American and 30% were foreign. Today it has completely inverted — 70% foreign, 30% American. This is not a diversity statistic. This is a structural vulnerability: the US has effectively outsourced the production of its own advanced technical workforce to foreign nationals, many of whom return home. Combined with the fact that China is now actively recruiting scientists from India, Europe, and elsewhere, the US faces a compounding talent deficit at the exact moment the technological competition with China is most acute.

"The percentage of US-born PhD recipients in computer science, for example. If you rewind the clock 30 years, I think it was 70% were American and 30% were foreign. And now it's inverted... the idea that, you know, seven out of 10 STEM-related PhD candidates in the United States are not American, like anyone can look at that and say, like, that just doesn't look right." 00:38:50

NSF Is Launching 4-Year Industry-Partnered PhDs — This Is a Structural Change to How Scientific Talent Enters the Economy

Buried in a list of implementation announcements, Kratsios mentions that NSF is creating a new PhD track done in partnership with industry that allows graduation in four years rather than the typical five to seven. This is quietly significant: it shortens the time-to-market for top scientific talent, aligns academic research with commercial application from day one, and creates a direct pipeline from the best PhD programs into industry. For investors and company builders in deep tech, this is worth watching — it could meaningfully increase the supply of immediately deployable research talent within the next decade.

"NSF also put out an announcement around four-year PhDs that are done in partnership with industry. So people can graduate out of the PhD program and go into industry much more quickly." 00:52:31