Overview 

Federal R&D funding—public dollars allocated by the US government to support scientific and technological progress—is among the strongest policy tools for shaping national innovation. Spawned out of Cold War ambitions to demonstrate and advance US technological superiority, today’s federal R&D enterprise spends $200 billion annually to initiate, accelerate, and guide progress at the frontiers of discovery.

More than 30 federal agencies fund hundreds of thousands of researchers in universities, companies, and government labs to achieve breakthroughs across the full innovation pipeline—from gaining fundamental knowledge to bringing promising nascent technologies to large-scale use. These investments have driven many of the most important technological advancements since World War II: the Internet, GPS, and voice recognition systems; the mapping of the human genome and the development of virtually all major vaccines; solar panels, nuclear energy, and shale gas extraction; autonomous vehicles and fuel-saving aviation technologies; and foundational advances in computing, artificial neural networks, and microchips.

This guide explains how and why the US government funds R&D, outlines key institutions and processes, and discusses considerations and opportunities for working in R&D policy. 

Why does the government invest in R&D?

There are several main justifications for federal R&D funding: 

1. Addressing market failures: The private sector tends to underinvest in basic and high-risk¹ research. Long timelines, high capital costs, and uncertain payoffs can make early-stage R&D unattractive to private investors, especially when the benefits are broadly shared (e.g. vaccines, clean air, foundational science). Public funding fills these gaps, supporting work that has high societal value but low profitability or high barriers to entry.²
2. De-risking emerging technologies: Many promising technologies face a “valley of death” between discovery and commercialization—a period where lengthy timelines to profitability or high technical uncertainty can deter private investment. Government funding helps bridge this gap by supporting prototyping, testing, and scale-up efforts that are too risky for private capital, shouldering risk until new technologies can attract private backing. This is particularly common in biotechnology, where long development timelines, complex regulatory requirements, and high upfront costs make it difficult for companies to secure sustained private investment.³ 
3. Advancing national priorities: Federal R&D investments often support national goals that markets wouldn’t independently pursue, like national defense, pandemic and natural disaster preparedness, energy security, rural broadband, or resilient supply chains for critical technologies. 
4. Steering technology toward public values: By funding and overseeing R&D, the government can steer technological progress in line with values like safety, privacy, and openness. For example, the government developed GPS for defense, but made it freely available for civilian use worldwide. 
5. Responding to crises: The US government often responds to crises by coordinating, mobilizing, and funding private sector R&D. During World War II, federal agencies partnered with scientists and industry to rapidly advance technologies like radar, mass-produced antibiotics (e.g. penicillin), and the atomic bomb—some of which launched entire postwar industries. In response to COVID-19, the federal government launched Operation Warp Speed—a public-private partnership that invested over $18 billion to deliver 300 million vaccine doses in less than a year.
6. Workforce development: Many federal R&D programs explicitly aim to train the next generation of scientists, engineers, and technologists. Programs like NSF’s Graduate Research Fellowship Program or DOE’s Computational Science Graduate Fellowship directly fund student researchers, while R&D investments broadly create demand for technical talent across academia, national labs, and private contractors.

Federal R&D funding basics

Federal R&D funding spans four main categories⁴:

1. Basic research, which seeks to expand fundamental understanding of the world without a specific application in mind (e.g. studying how plant genes change);
2. Applied research, which uses scientific knowledge to address practical problems (e.g. identifying genetic traits to improve drought tolerance); 
3. Development, which builds on applied research to create or improve actual products, tools, or processes (e.g. designing a drought-resistant crop variety); and
4. Commercialization and technology transition, which helps innovations reach end users. This stage involves scaling, adapting, and often transferring technology to the private sector or other agencies⁵ (e.g. scaling seed production for widespread agricultural use).

The US government plays an outsized role in earlier stages of the R&D pipeline—particularly in basic research, where private investment tends to be lowest due to long timelines, high uncertainty, and limited short-term profitability.

While more than 30 federal agencies fund R&D, the vast majority of federal dollars flow through a few key players. Together, the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), primarily through the National Institutes of Health (NIH), account for ~75% of total federal R&D spending, with the remaining 25% primarily spent by the Department of Energy (DOE), NASA, and the National Science Foundation (NSF). We’ll explore each of these agencies in more detail below. 

Federal R&D funding has increased in absolute dollars since the 1970s—rising from about $90 billion in 1976 to around $190 billion in 2023 (in constant 2022 dollars)—but has steadily declined as a share of the federal budget, falling from nearly 12% in the 1960s to under 3% today. See more historical trends in R&D funding here.

Most R&D funding goes to external (“extramural”) research institutions like universities and private companies, but ~30% supports in-house (“intramural”) research at government labs. Funding for external researchers flows through a mix of competitive grants, contracts, and other mechanisms. We’ll explain these funding mechanisms in more detail below. 

Funding models and mechanisms

Federal R&D programs don’t just vary in what they fund—they also differ in how they fund it. One helpful distinction is between:

• Funding models reflect the government’s overall strategy for designing and managing research programs, defining the level of risk, timeline, oversight, and who sets research priorities.
• Funding mechanisms are the concrete tools agencies use to deliver funding (e.g. grants, contracts, prizes).

Most programs fall into one of several broad funding models⁶:

1. Traditional programs support long-term, steady research, usually in well-established fields. These programs operate through a researcher-initiated model where scientists⁷ propose projects that experts evaluate for scientific merit, technical feasibility, and potential impact. As the dominant funding mechanism for both NIH and NSF, traditional programs represent the largest share of federal R&D expenditures. These programs primarily use competitive grants and cooperative agreements, with comparatively less agency involvement once funding is awarded. While both NIH and NSF fall under this model, their internal processes differ: NIH relies heavily on external peer review panels, often composed of field experts, to assess proposals, while NSF program officers play a more hands-on role in selecting reviewers, synthesizing feedback, and making final award decisions.
2. ARPA-style programs (Advanced Research Project Agencies) are designed for “high-risk, high-reward” R&D. ARPA Program Managers (PMs) define bold technical goals and manage fast-paced portfolios with hands-on oversight, actively shaping external teams and adjusting priorities in real time. These programs typically rely on contracts, milestone-based funding, and Other Transaction Authorities (OTAs) to enable flexible, performance-driven management. This model characterizes the “ARPAs”—certain federal subagencies that support research in pursuit of their parent department’s mission (e.g. DARPA for defense, IARPA for intelligence, ARPA-E for energy, and ARPA-H for health).
3. Translation and commercialization programs focus on scaling up and transitioning mature technologies to real-world use. These programs aim to bridge the “valley of death” between research and deployment, using tools like milestone-based funding, commercial partnerships, and tailored contracting mechanisms. Key examples include BARDA within HHS, the Defense Innovation Unit within DOD, and the intelligence community’s VC investor In-Q-Tel.
4. Moonshot programs pursue ambitious national goals, like curing cancer or landing on the moon. They often span multiple agencies and stages of R&D, often blending grants, contracts, prizes, and advance market commitments depending on the goal and stage. Moonshots may also contain ARPA-style subprograms and public-private partnerships to speed translation and impact.

Each program also uses a different mix of funding mechanisms to meet its goals. These mechanisms vary in how they distribute risk, structure incentives, and balance agency control with performer flexibility:

Federal R&D funding and emerging technology 

Federal R&D funding is one of the US government’s most powerful levers for driving technological innovation and strategic growth. Many of today’s transformative technologies—including AI, biomanufacturing, and quantum computing—received early-stage support from public R&D and continue to benefit from sustained investment. This support influences not only early-stage discovery and development, but also who participates in emerging tech ecosystems, which markets succeed, how quickly breakthroughs reach end-users, and how innovation aligns with national goals.

In some sectors—particularly defense, energy, and health—federal R&D can also influence downstream adoption. For example, military departments often fund the full lifecycle of emerging technologies, from initial research to deployed systems, creating built-in markets for novel technologies like autonomous drones, bioengineered materials, or AI-enabled targeting tools. 

Many technologies that define the modern economy began as federal R&D intiatives:

• The Internet (originally ARPANET) emerged from a 1969 ARPA¹¹ experiment to create secure communications networks between research facilities. Government funding and coordination between DARPA, NSF, and other agencies helped bring it to its modern commercial form. 
• GPS began as a military navigation tool developed by DOD in the 1970s and 1980s. Today, it underpins nearly every form of modern transportation—from ride-hailing to aviation to supply chain logistics.
• Smartphones depend on government-originated components, including multi-touch screens (NSF), microprocessors (DOD/NASA), lithium-ion batteries (DOE), and voice assistants (DARPA’s PAL project, which became Siri).
• AI owes key advances to sustained public funding—from neural network research and reinforcement learning in the 1980s and 90s to today’s NSF-led National AI Research Institutes and DARPA’s “AI Next” campaign. 
• Google search algorithm: An NSF-funded project developed a “PageRank” prototype in the early 1990s that now serves as one of the main components of Google search. 
• Self-driving cars emerged from DARPA’s Grand Challenges in the early 2000s—the agency’s first major attempt to use a prize-based competition to attract novel performers. This multi-million dollar contest series effectively launched the self-driving technology industry, with many participants later joining Google, Uber, and other private robotics teams.¹²
• Semiconductors and microelectronics were significantly accelerated by federal investment. Defense contracts and military performance standards helped build domestic supply chains, while R&D support from DARPA and NSF enabled miniaturization and scale. 
• Biotechnology and genomics—from gene editing to synthetic biology—trace back to decades of NIH, DOE, and NSF support. DOE and NIH coordinated the Human Genome Project, a 13-year, landmark global scientific effort that produced a sequence accounting for 90% of the human genome. Over 70% of US-based Nobel Laureates in chemistry, physics, and medicine were funded by NSF during their careers. 

A section below provides more examples of emerging technology offices and initiatives in major R&D funding agencies.

Why (not) work on federal R&D funding? 

The case for impact

Federal R&D funding offers opportunities to shape the direction of science and technology from the ground up—often before markets, standards, or governance structures fully form. This gives it several unique advantages as a policy tool:

• Upstream influence on emerging technologies: R&D funding often creates entirely new technological fields before markets exist for them. Early government investment in semiconductors, the internet, and GPS shaped how these industries developed for decades, establishing technical standards, research directions, and competitive advantages that persist today. 
• Incentives-based: Unlike regulations or mandates, R&D funding shapes outcomes through positive investment. This enables it to attract talent and resources toward strategic areas while avoiding potentially politically fraught mandates, restrictions, or opposition. That said, R&D funding is not insulated from politics—funding levels can be highly vulnerable to shifting political priorities.
• Supports long-term bets: Public R&D isn’t constrained by short-term market returns. It can fund decades-long technology maturation—from basic science to enabling infrastructure—that wouldn’t otherwise attract sustained private support. It tolerates failure, supports exploration, and isn’t reliant on proven business models. 
• Flexible, targeted approach: Compared to broader policy tools like tax credits, R&D programs can be tightly scoped and targeted to specific goals on a project-by-project basis.
• Influence over large-scale public investment: Program managers (PMs)¹⁴—the key managers of federal R&D programs—often exercise substantial discretion in shaping funding programs, engaging with researchers, and overseeing large projects.¹⁵ A single PM at a federal R&D agency can oversee hundreds of millions in funding decisions over the course of their career. Congressional staff on budget subcommittees (like those overseeing health, defense, or energy) help determine agency budgets worth tens of billions annually. Senior roles at OSTP shape multi-agency research initiatives like the CHIPS and Science Act, and OMB staff influence budget allocations across entire scientific disciplines. 
• Built-in policy window: R&D funding operates within the established annual budget cycle, creating predictable opportunities for policy changes without requiring new legislation. Unlike standalone policy initiatives that depend on political momentum and “policy windows” opening, R&D funding adjustments happen during a guaranteed and recurring process, creating a lower-friction pathway to policy change.
• Leveraged impact: Funding research is more leveraged than leading research, which is more leveraged than doing research. By shaping what gets funded, how it’s structured, and who gets to participate, R&D funders can steer entire fields, not just individual projects. This makes federal R&D funding roles some of the most upstream and scalable points of influence in the innovation ecosystem.

The case for professional growth 

• Cross-cutting exposure: R&D staff often sit at the nexus of government, academia, industry, and startups—providing a bird’s-eye view of the innovation ecosystem, building an expansive professional network, and offering promising exit opportunities.
• Career flexibility and credentialing: R&D roles—especially program management positions—are high-trust, prestigious jobs. Succeeding in one signals the ability to manage complexity, work across sectors, and exercise sound judgment under uncertainty.
• Autonomy and influence over large-scale investments: Program managers (PMs) often exercise substantial discretion in designing funding programs, evaluating grant proposals, and overseeing large projects. At ARPA agencies, for example, PMs typically lead 2–5 programs simultaneously, with individual program budgets ranging from $20 million to $80 million.¹⁶ At traditional R&D agencies like NSF, program officers often manage dozens to hundreds of grants across a thematic area (e.g. quantum materials, STEM education), with collective portfolios valued at $10–50 million or more. While they have less discretion in grant selection (due to peer review), they shape funding priorities, manage award cycles, and engage regularly with the research community.
• Work at the frontier: Federal R&D often backs exploratory, pre-commercial research. This means program staff routinely engage with cutting-edge ideas and work closely with leading researchers in their field, and thus may have visibility into transformative technologies years in advance of most other professions.

Some tradeoffs

• High risk of failure¹⁷: Many programs target inherently uncertain or speculative technologies, meaning that many efforts won’t yield usable results or will fail to overcome the “valley of death”.
• Slow feedback loops: With some exceptions, private firms often underinvest in technologies with long time horizons—it’s difficult to secure investment over multi-decade timeframes, especially with uncertain payouts. This makes the government uniquely well-positioned to fund longer-term R&D. It also means that those working on federal R&D funding may not see its scaled benefits until long after their tenure. One analysis estimated a 20-year average lag from initial R&D funding to technological application. 

• Limited downstream control: Federal R&D often catalyzes early-stage innovation but has little authority over how those technologies are ultimately used, regulated, or commercialized. While some funding processes heavily inform deployment (e.g. for defense applications), federal R&D funding historically “gets the ball rolling”—often kickstarting new companies or entire industries with limited control over their ultimate direction or outcomes.¹⁸ 
• Bureaucratic complexity: Federal grantmaking has been criticized for having overly burdensome systems of review and monitoring. In some fields, researchers spend as much time managing bureaucracy as doing science—by one estimate, scientists can spend up to 50% of their time writing grant applications. While some R&D programs (like ARPAs) are structured to minimize regulatory burden, even the most agile federal programs operate within a system that often prioritizes caution and compliance.
• Low political salience: R&D funding can face unique political challenges because its benefits are often uncertain, diffuse, and pay out over long time horizons. Unlike (for example) infrastructure or healthcare programs with visible, immediate impacts, fundamental research rarely has clear beneficiaries. Disease-specific groups (like cancer or Alzheimer’s groups) often advocate for targeted medical research, and large-scale events (like Sputnik) can catalyze public interest, but basic science and early-stage technology often lack organized constituencies. This dynamic makes it harder for politicians to claim credit and for voters to see or anticipate direct value.¹⁹
• Institutional bottlenecks: Some have argued the federal R&D system relies on too narrow a set of institutions—primarily universities, which have come to dominate pre-commercial research. This “academic monopoly” can constrain the types of research that get done, slow down translation, and limit institutional experimentation. Researchers working through university labs often face conflicting incentives (e.g. publishing vs. prototyping), bureaucratic frictions, and tech transfer barriers that can dilute the impact of otherwise promising work. Proposals have called for “unbundling” research from traditional university structures and funding new institutions better suited to advancing use-inspired or systems-level technologies.

The funding process: Who’s involved? 

The following sections cover key actors at each stage of the federal R&D funding process. In a nutshell, federal R&D funding happens through these stages: 

1. Budget and policy direction setting: Every year, Congress sets federal spending levels through the appropriations process, determining how much money agencies like NIH, NSF, or DARPA receive for R&D programs, and which priorities those funds should support. Key players include the White House, federal agency leadership, and authorizing and appropriations committees in Congress.
2. Grant-making and program execution: Federal agencies design and administer R&D programs, using grants, contracts, and other mechanisms to fund and resource researchers. PMs at agencies like NSF, NIH, DOE, and DOD play a central role in shaping funding calls, selecting projects, and managing award portfolios.
3. Conducting the actual R&D: Research is “performed” by an ecosystem of universities, national labs, private companies, and nonprofit research organizations.
4. Coordination: Coordination bodies like OSTP, the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), and interagency working groups work to align federal R&D efforts across agencies and ensure strategic coherence.
5. Oversight: Congress, OMB, and watchdog agencies (like Congress’ Government Accountability Office) monitor how R&D funds are used and whether programs deliver results. 

Budget and policy direction setting

There’s no single pool of federal R&D funding—rather, total R&D spending is the result of a sprawling annual budget process that spans more than 30 federal agencies, over 300 R&D programs, and multiple layers of political and strategic decision-making. In FY2024, federal R&D spending totaled roughly $210 billion. This process is shaped by the White House, which proposes the budget and sets high-level research priorities; think tanks and external groups, who provide input and advocate for certain changes; and Congress, which finalizes spending levels.

Grant-making and program execution

→ See also our full guides on R&D funding agencies linked in the table below.

Once Congress sets agency budgets, federal departments and offices design and execute R&D programs, translating high-level funding priorities into concrete investments in labs, projects, and researchers. These programs define how they will support research, distribute funding, and measure progress. 

To distribute these funds, agencies issue solicitations²⁷—formal calls for research proposals that define goals, eligibility, timelines, and evaluation criteria. Some are broad and open-ended (e.g. DARPA’s AI Exploration Opportunities, AI Cyber Challenge), while others target specific challenges (e.g. NIH research on nanotechnology cancer interventions).

While PMs manage federal R&D programs, leadership and support teams also shape R&D funding processes at each major R&D agency. For example: 

• NSF’s National Science Board approves new programs and establishes agency policies, while directorate and division leadership design most funding programs.
• ARPAs have specialized teams to help PMs and performers translate breakthrough research into real-world applications (e.g. DARPA’s Transition & Commercialization Support Program, and ARPA-E’s Tech to Market Advisors).

Conducting the actual R&D

→ See also our full guide on national labs and FFRDCs.

“Performers” are the institutions carrying out the research funded by government agencies—universities, companies, national laboratories, and other entities that receive and execute R&D contracts and grants. 

“Investigators” are the individual researchers who lead or conduct the scientific work within these performing organizations. The “Principal Investigator” (PI) is typically the lead scientist with primary responsibility for the technical and administrative aspects of a research project, including managing the research team, ensuring compliance with federal requirements, and serving as the main point of contact with the funding agency. 

The chart and table below cover the main performers in more detail:

Federal R&D funding supports both:

• Intramural R&D, conducted in government-owned laboratories (“federal laboratories”) by in-house or contractor scientists; and
• Extramural R&D, conducted by external organizations (universities, companies, or nonprofits) through grants or other funding mechanisms.

Intramural R&D can be further split into two categories: 

• Government-owned, government-operated (GOCO) labs are owned or leased by the federal government and staffed by federal employees.
• Government-owned, contractor-operated (GOCO) labs are owned and equipped by the federal government but operated under contract by for-profit companies, nonprofit companies, and universities, and their staff are not considered federal employees.

GOGO and GOCO classifications determine the legal mechanisms available to these labs for managing and transferring their innovations—for example, both types can patent and license innovations, but only GOCO labs are eligible to claim copyright protection for software products.

The landscape of federally funded R&D performers is complex, and in practice, the distinctions between categories aren’t always applied consistently. While the classifications below follow formal definitions from US Code, many practitioners and policymakers use these terms more loosely or interchangeably depending on context.

Coordination

Given the vast scale and fragmentation of the federal R&D enterprise, executive coordination and advisory bodies help align cross-cutting priorities, implement multi-agency initiatives, and monitor progress. These are particularly important for coordinating multi-agency R&D programs (e.g. CHIPS Act) or implementing national strategies (e.g. for Advanced Manufacturing, Biodefense, AI). The same White House bodies that shape budgets and high-level policy also serve ongoing coordination functions, overseeing and synchronizing R&D program implementation across the federal government.

• Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP): OSTP leads cross-agency S&T strategy, co-develops the annual R&D priorities memo with OMB, and oversees implementation of multi-agency initiatives. It frequently convenes interagency working groups—for example, to align federal AI R&D following President Biden’s Executive Order on AI or to coordinate the bioeconomy strategy launched in 2022.
• Office of Management and Budget (OMB): Beyond budget-setting, OMB shapes how agencies implement R&D programs through management oversight, regulatory review, and procurement policy. OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) reviews major regulations made by agencies, including those governing R&D processes. OMB’s management offices help coordinate R&D-related IT systems, performance tracking, and agency procurement, including AI acquisition policies across agencies.
• National Science and Technology Council (NSTC): Chaired by the president and managed by OSTP, NSTC organizes interagency committees and working groups that align federal S&T efforts, including on government-wide R&D initiatives.
• President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST): An external advisory group of scientists, engineers, industry leaders, and policy experts who provide independent guidance to the president on S&T policy, including long-term R&D strategy and national competitiveness.

Other Executive Office of the President (EOP) offices can also play coordinating roles when initiatives fall under their purview, including specialized offices like the Office of the National Cyber Director (ONCD) and the National Space Council (NSpC) and higher-level coordinating bodies like NSC.

Oversight

Multiple entities monitor federal R&D programs to ensure accountability, effectiveness, and alignment with national priorities, including:

• Congress: Exercises oversight through hearings, reporting requirements, and investigations. Authorizing and appropriations committees may request progress reports on funded programs or require specific deliverables from agencies.
  • Government Accountability Office (GAO): A congressional watchdog that evaluates the performance, cost-effectiveness, and risks of federal programs—including R&D initiatives. GAO audits can identify duplication, management issues, or gaps in accountability.
• Office of Management and Budget (OMB): Beyond budget-setting, OMB monitors program execution and ensures compliance with administration priorities. It can direct agencies to modify, delay, or terminate underperforming programs and sets performance benchmarks through its management offices. OMB also develops and reviews executive orders affecting R&D programs, then issues detailed implementation guidance to agencies through follow-up memoranda.
• Inspectors General (IGs): Each major R&D agency has an IG office that conducts independent audits and investigations of agency operations, fraud prevention, and compliance with federal regulations (e.g. NSF IG office).
• External groups: Think tanks, universities, advocacy nonprofits, and journalists also evaluate federal R&D programs by tracking spending and historical trends, publishing assessments and forecasting impacts, and highlighting gaps or inefficiencies. These efforts often shape public understanding and inform congressional or executive oversight. 

Working on R&D funding: types of roles and career opportunities

The table below outlines the core types of R&D funding roles, including common backgrounds, day-to-day responsibilities, and resources for finding early-career opportunities and full-time positions.

Preparing for R&D funding roles 

While requisite skills and experience vary widely across R&D-related roles (e.g. in Congress vs. in a national lab), two qualifications stand out as broadly valuable: subject-matter expertise and familiarity with R&D funding processes. To prepare for federal R&D funding roles, consider: 

• Participating in early-career programs: If you’re a student or early-career, try to participate in related programs: e.g. intern at a national lab, apply for agency scholarship programs (e.g. DOD SMART scholarships, DOE student experience program), or join competitions like Hackathons or Grand Challenges run by R&D agencies. 
• Complete an S&T policy internship or fellowship (e.g. AAAS’ S&T Policy Fellowship). See opportunities for specific agencies and organizations linked above. 
• Engaging with R&D agencies: Agencies like NSF, NIH, DOE, and DARPA often host Proposers’ Days, workshops, or webinars to announce open funding opportunities and interact with prospective grantees. These public events let you observe how program managers frame problems and engage potential grantees. Reviewing past funding calls, challenge pages, or prize competitions can also help you understand what different agencies prioritize and how they communicate those goals.
• Understanding budget and grantmaking processes: Learn the basics of the federal budgeting process, including the roles of OMB, Congress, and federal agencies, and familiarize yourself with funding mechanisms and processes. Some agencies host primers or online webinars explaining their funding processes (e.g. NIH events).
• Networking with R&D professionals: Reach out to current and former R&D staff at your institutions of interest for informational interviews. These conversations can help you navigate the hiring process, clarify your fit, and gain valuable professional connections. If you’re able, consider attending events like the ARPA-E Summit, AAAS Annual Meeting, or NSF PI meetings to expand your network.
• Publishing research or policy articles: Demonstrate technical credibility through peer-reviewed publications, conference talks, or patents. If you’re a student or early-career, consider co-authoring research with a professor or publishing a science policy article in a news outlet.
• Gaining subject-matter expertise: Many R&D roles expect strong technical depth—graduate degrees (often STEM PhDs) are common at federal R&D agencies, OSTP, and other organizations with close R&D program involvement.
• Starting as a performer: Interning or working full-time on a federally funded project at a university, nonprofit, or national lab can familiarize you with writing or managing grant applications, understanding award cycles, and navigating compliance and reporting requirements. Performer-side work can also serve as a valuable stepping stone to government employment. If you’re a student, see if your university has federally-funded research by searching “[your university] + [federal agency] grant” (e.g. “UW Madison DOE grant”). If so, see if you could serve as a research assistant for a professor leading the project.
• Participate in mid-career “accelerator” programs: Several programs provide training, networking opportunities, and mentorship for mid-career professionals interested in leading R&D programs, including the Big If True Science (BiTS) Accelerator and the Brains Accelerator.

Appendices: Day-in-the-life & a brief history of federal R&D funding 

Further reading 

• Federal R&D Funding: FY2025, Congressional Research Service (2024) 
• National Patterns of R&D Resources, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics
• Historical trends in federal R&D, American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
• How to Invest Federal Funds Like a VC, Statecraft (2024) 
• Federal R&D Funding: The Bedrock of National Innovation, Science Policy Review (2020)
• The rise and fall of the industrial R&D lab, Ben Southwood (2020)
• AAAS R&D Budget Primer, AAAS (2019)
• GPS, lithium batteries, the internet, cellular technology, airbags: A Q&A about how governments often fuel innovation, Liz Jacobs (2013)
• Transforming Biomedical Research in the 21st Century, National Research Council (2011)
• The Science of Science Policy, Kaye Husbands Fealing et al. (2011)
• Beyond Sputnik: U.S. Science Policy in the 21st Century, Homer A. Neal et al. (2008)
• Funding a Revolution: Government Support for Computing Research, National Research Council (1999)
• Federally Funded Research: Decisions for a Decade, Office of Technology Assessment (1991)

Related articles

AI policy

Biosecurity policy

China and tech policy

Civic tech

Cyber policy

Nuclear security

Space policy

Footnotes