Over on the homepage today, I’ve got a piece about the evolving Endless Frontier Act, which looks like it’s heading to the Senate floor this week.

The bill began as a massive infusion of cash into a new division of the National Science Foundation that would be devoted to strategically directed technology development, rather than the sort of basic science that the NSF generally supports. As it has made its way through the Senate committee process, the bill has changed some — mostly for the better I would say. It would now make more use of the existing infrastructure of the national labs, and so would be less likely to deform the NSF, which serves a different vital purpose.

But the bill’s design still raises some serious questions about how best to use public resources to support strategic national aims in science and technology, and also how to do that in a way that suits the rhythms and patterns of the kind of academic research enterprises that most of the money would support.

A lot of the bill’s champions look to the doubling of the National Institutes of Health budget between 1998 and 2003 as a model. I argue we should also look at some of the warnings and cautionary tales offered up by that experience, which did not go smoothly at all.

It makes sense to invest a lot more in strategically vital technological development, especially given China’s aggressiveness in that arena. But it matters just how we choose to do that. And now, before any new money starts flowing, is the time to make sure we’re getting it right. More here.