David Goldston ventures from his regular Nature post to visit the January edition of Wired.  In this column Goldston addresses how science policy might fare under an Obama Administration.  In doing so, he outlines some of the problems with treating science policy as just science budget policy.  One of those problems is that focusing on the budget reinforces the linear model of basic research–>applied research–>development.  Federal science budget policy puts most, if not all, of its emphasis on the first part of that model, and Goldston notes that with much of what President-elect Obama wants to do, basic research is at best insufficient to meet his goals, and at worst not aligned with those policy priorities.

Goldston avoids the easy answers and doesn’t focus just on policies for development or diffusion of innovations.  It’s not just about market incentives, but also about focusing on areas of research that haven’t been a target of federal support and don’t have advocates angling for that support.  He said it best in his closing paragraph:

“Thinking and acting comprehensively about science and the policies that can shape its application is not only riskier politically but more challenging intellectually.”

If those involved with science policy can focus on thinking and acting more comprehensively, the rewards could go beyond gaining resources during this next administration and include a strategy towards more sustainable science and technology policies into the future.  Appeals to double the budget are easy strategies for maintaining a status quo that keeps us in the present.