In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

THE EVOLUTION OF A SCIENCE ADVISORY BODY IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MARVIN CASSMAN*1 In 1940 the total federal expenditure for research and development was slightly less than $100 million. Most of these funds were for the conduct of science in government-owned installations, with the one significant exception being support of agriculture through the experimental stations. By 1948 federal support for R&D had reached $865 million, even after the termination of specific wartime programs such as the Manhattan Project. The public esteem for science and scientists was never greater, and perhaps would never be as great again. There was a general consensus, among politicians and scientists both, that the central role that science had played in the war effort must now be transferred to the civilian scene and that government's role as a patron of science must be continued and expanded. The time appeared uniquely suited to the achievement of a long-sought goal—the establishment of a centralized structure that would be responsible for all federally supported science, at least all basic research, and that could act as a central advisory body on science policy issues. The attempt to accomplish this failed, as had all previous attempts. The federal support of science remained as it had been from its earliest days—diffuse, diverse, and predominantly located in specific problem-oriented agencies. The resulting fragmented management of federally supported science and the absence of a well-defined advisory structure were, of course, just a continuation of the status quo. However, the environment *Deputy Director, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 5333 Westbard Avenue, Room 922, Bethesda, Maryland 20892. 'The views expressed are solely mine. When I have consciously used someone else's idea, or quoted a phrase, I hope the origin has been clear. But I owe so much to the work of Daniel J. Kevles and A. Hunter Dupree that I can express only my general gratitude. The difficulty of saying something new about a much-discussed subject can be understood from the form of this acknowledgment, which is itself a paraphrase from the preface to The Century ofRevolution, 1603-1714, by Christopher Hill, who is hereby acknowledged.© 1991 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 003 1-5982/91/3403-0729$01 .00 Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 34, 3 · Spring 1991 439 for science had radically changed. The influence of the concepts and tools developed by modern science now extended to virtually every aspect of modern life and consequently affected, directly or indirectly, political decisions made at every level. But, as with any other highly specialized branch of knowledge, science requires both translation and interpretation to make it useful to laymen, a group that includes, with few exceptions, all practicing politicians. Consequently, the problem of how to provide timely and readily accessible advice on issues related to science was, and still remains, of central importance, especially as it affects advice to the president. The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) in the executive office of the president emerged from just such a need. Potentially, this office can contribute to insuring that national policies are undertaken with a proper understanding of the contribution of science and technology and that science is appropriately nurtured within the federal structure. However, precisely what role OSTP should play, how broad its mandate should be, and how it should relate to the diverse agencies and departments through which science is managed in the federal government, are and have been a matter for extensive debate. To understand the forces that shape this debate, it is necessary to consider the way science has been perceived as operating within the federal government, with a particular focus on the repeated attempts to set up a centralized structure that can speak both to and for the scientific community. (Of the many discussions of this issue, two that are particularly relevant are those of Wells and Dupree [1, 2].) Early Attempts to Promote a Central Science Organization As with most fundamental political issues, the contemporary scene for science is strongly conditioned by the debates held and decisions made at the time of the Constitutional Convention. At the end of the eighteenth century the...

pdf

Share