A concern I have with some of the jockeying over the economic stimulus package is the potential to frame funding as a series of either/or propositions.  The headline of this ScienceInsider piece – “Economic Stimulus: U.S. House Could Call for Test Tubes As Well As Pavement” – hints at what I mean.  While this particular example is not framed strictly as an either/or proposition, it does consider research as something separate, independent, and perhaps better than other worthy investments. The focus is a bit narrow.  Take a look at this other ScienceInsider piece describing the recent round of funding for the Technology Innovation Program.  This funding supports infrastructure research.  While the research may not be ‘fundamental’ in the traditional sense, the projects are often trying to demonstrate proof of concept.

Couldn’t the needs of the research community leverage the investment needs of the country?  Science advocacy communities appear too focused on ‘basic’ research funding to be making the argument, but they are the people that need to make the case.  Since doubling research funding in the sciences is listed as part of the Obama-Biden economic plan, I think the concern that research funding will be overlooked is a bit overstated.  But I think getting additional resources will stand a better chance of success if they can be found in service of other national needs.  This is perhaps the kind of comprehensive thinking that David Goldston encouraged in his Wired piece.