In other efforts, the American Association for the Advancement of Science offers fellowships that put new Ph.D. researchers into Congressional offices and federal agencies. And the Aldo Leopold Leadership Program offers environmental researchers training in how to communicate with the public and policy makers. One of its founders was Jane Lubchenco, a marine scientist who left a research position at Oregon State University in 2008 to lead the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Sometimes finances are an issue. “It’s difficult to monetize something like this,” said Brian D. Athey, a professor of biomedical informatics at the University of Michigan Medical School and the chairman of the board of Sefora. And he said Sefora did not know how many of the scientists and engineers who have attended its workshops have sought — or won — elected office. “We need informed members of Congress, we need informed city mayors, we need governors who understand science and engineering,” Dr. Athey said.

There is plenty of scope for these efforts, said Dr. Foster, who cited “glaring instances of technical ignorance on both sides of the aisle.” He recalled a fellow Democrat (whom he would not name) as advocating greater use of wind power “because windmills poll so well” — which is not, Dr. Foster said, a sound basis for energy policy. And then there was the Republican who praised the development of GPS technology as an example of innovation unfettered by government, apparently unaware that the technology is a product of government-sponsored research.

Whether these various efforts can succeed is an open question.

Daniel S. Greenberg, author of the 2001 book “Science, Money and Politics” (University of Chicago Press), said in an interview that he thought the odds of success were “pretty poor,” in part because of the widespread belief that such activity is inappropriate for serious researchers or taints their objectivity. He pointed to the presidential election of 1964, when scientists organized opposition to Barry Goldwater, the Republican candidate. Goldwater was defeated, but, Mr. Greenberg said, the effort left many researchers feeling “we have sullied science.”

Even today, when researchers enter the political arena, “the scientific establishment holds that against a scientist to some extent,” Dr. Holt, the New Jersey congressman, said in a telephone interview.

Alan I. Leshner, a psychologist who heads the American Association for the Advancement of Science, agreed. He recalled learning as a young scientist in the 1960s that people who engaged in issues outside the lab “were wasting time and a sellout.” Young researchers today want their work to be “relevant, useful and used,” he said, but “they still get that message from their mentors.”

Some researchers are concerned that if they leave the lab, even briefly, they will never be able to pick up the thread of their technical careers. But Dr. Foster said he had had no shortage of interesting job opportunities in science after his two years in Congress. And, he added, such risks were built into public service.