In the long term, supply will almost certainly be the bigger problem. There simply aren't enough technologists who want to get involved in public policy.
This just isn't true. Almost everywhere I've been as a consultant I couldn't throw a rock without hitting several geeks who were tired of being at yet another "startup culture" tech company that was managed by amoral jerks whose only business plan was the baseless fantasy that they could build a cheap product just well enough to convince some giant company like Google to buy them out for billions. That "supply" is large and eager to do more meaningful work. The real problem remains, as I've pointed out many times before, that the clueless HR drones in public institutions (and most other private companies) fail to actually engage those people in a manner that demonstrates a sincere interest in acquiring talent to do innovative public development.
Right now, there aren't enough places to go for scientists or technologists who want to do public policy work, and the ones that exist tend to be underfunded and in environments where technologists are unappreciated.
See, here you even acknowledge the fact that there isn't enough demand for the current supply. All the nonsense you wrote about increasing the supply would only make matters worse.
Policymakers need to realize that they need technologists on their policy teams, and to accept well-established scientific findings as fact. It is also no longer okay to discount technological expertise merely because it contradicts your political biases.
I would argue that those with counterfactual political biases need science and technology experts more. Not necessarily to correct their thinking, either, but to at least make a case that's more sensical than the ravings of a loon! I mean, to properly twist logic, you really need a strong grasp of the subject, right? Some will say that's a misuse of science, but the truth is that it is a tool like any other, and just as you would grant a criminal a lawyer to defend themselves against a prosecution attorney, it would be smart to get someone to propose the most rational hypothesis for the most wackadoodle political policy as well.
If we're honest with ourselves, it was never okay for technology to be separate from policy.
That ignores history. The honest truth is that all major governments in today's world are still based on pre-scientific thinking. Consequently, it's easy to understand why the related advances which technology provides are also pushed away by those who wish to continue to engage in outdated magical thinking. Until political policy changes to represent even 19th century levels of rational thought, there is very little reason to believe that society will continue to function well as we move deeper into the 21st century.
1c042892e5ce3c1d73505d52e382172b524a8106e888788764d0c0f9469cfce7