Daniel Sarewitz constructs a stereotype of scientists who are left to their own devices and whose research is disconnected from potential applications (Nature 547, 139; 2017). As president of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB), I argue that this misrepresents both US researchers and their funders.

Most federal funding for basic research comes from mission-oriented agencies such as the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense (see go.nature.com/2i2ta6j). Funding applicants must respond to strict agency priorities. For NIH funding, for example, they have to describe the relevance of their research to public health and respond to a specific funding-opportunity announcement, which is often targeted to a narrow goal. The US National Science Foundation evaluates its grant applications in terms of broader social impacts as well as on intellectual merit. The general research-funding system is clearly directed at societal needs, with levels set by congressional appropriation committees that are responsible for discrete areas of national interest.

As for the risible claim that scientists are shielded from accountability, one need only glance at the application and review process for federal research grants. Those fortunate enough to survive this gauntlet must then operate under a crushing system of regulations (see go.nature.com/29afkwd).

The threat to US science does not come from scientists' assumptions, their commitment to investigator-initiated research or the research community's failure to tackle problems of public concern. It comes from an unrealistic system of draconian budget caps that stifle investment in the future.