This article analyzes the National Science Study produced by the Republican-dominated U.S. Congress in the mid-1990s to see if the priorities of S&T policy were changing, if state agencies were being reorganized to achieve new priorities, and if universities were expected to work closely with industry in reconfigured agencies. Also analyzed was the economic composition of board members of eight S&T policy organizations that informed the National Science Study. It was found that, generally, Republican policy supported both basic science and civilian technology policy but did not advocate reorganization of state administration of S&T. However, a number of the S&T policy groups pushed for the establishment of a separate mission agency for civilian technology. This suggests that conceptualization of a unitary social contract between science and society or iterated principal-agent relations expressing the interaction of science and society are insufficient because there may be multiple social contracts and many principals and agents.
American Association for the Advancement of Science
. 2003a. DOD receives record R&D portfolio. Available at http://www.aaas.org.
2.
American Association for the Advancement of Science
. 2003b. September status report on R&D FY 2004 appropriations. Available at http://www.aaas.org.
3.
Amsterdamska, O.1990. Surely you are joking, Monsieur Latour! Science, Technology, &Human Values15 (4): 495-504.
4.
Aronowitz, Stanley
. 1988. Science as power: Discourse and ideology in modern society. New York: Macmillan.
5.
Bowles, Samuel
. 1992. Post-Marxian economics: Labour, learning and history. In Interfaces in economic and social analysis, edited by Ulf Himmelstrand, 95-111. London: Routledge.
6.
Branscomb, Lewis M.1997. From technology politics to technology policy. Issues in Science and Technology13 (3): 41-48.
7.
Branscomb, Lewis M., Richard Florida, David Hart, James Keller, and Darin Boville. 1997.Investing in innovation: Toward a consensus strategy for federal technology policy. Working Paper, Steering Committee of the Project on Technology Policy Assessment, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University.
8.
Braun, Dietmar.1993. Who governs intermediary organizations? Principal-agent relations in research policy-making. Journal of Public Policy13 (2): 135-162.
9.
Brooks, Harvey
. 1996. Evolution of U.S. science policy. In Technology, R&D, and the Economy,edited by B. L. R. Smith and Claude Barfield, 15-48. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution and American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
10.
Bush, Vannevar
. 1945/1960. Science: The endless frontier. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
11.
Callon, M.1986. The sociology of an actor-network: The case of the electric vehicle. In Mapping the dynamics of science and technology, edited by Michael Callon, John Law, and Arie Rip, 19-34. Basingstoke, England: Macmillan.
12.
Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government
. 1993. Science, technology, and government for a changing world. New York: Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology and Government.
13.
Chomsky, Noam
. 1969. American power and the new mandarins. New York: Pantheon.
14.
Chomsky, Noam
. 1994. World orders old and new. New York: Columbia University Press.
15.
Clarke, A. E.
, and J. H. Fujimura, eds. 1992. The right tools for the job: At work in twentieth century life sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
16.
Clinton, William J., and Albert Gore, Jr. September 21, 1992. Technology: The engine of economic development. A national technology policy for America. National Campaign Headquarters, P.O. Box 615, Little Rock, AR.
17.
Clinton, William J.
, and Albert Gore, Jr.1994. Science in the national interest. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy.
18.
Collins, H.
, and S. Yearley. 1992. Epistemological chicken. In Science as practice and culture, edited by Andrew Pickering, 301-326. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
19.
COSEPUP (Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy)
. 1993. Science, technology, and the federal government: National goals for a new era. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
20.
COSEPUP (Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy)
. 1995. Reshaping the graduate education of scientists and engineers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
21.
Council on Competitiveness
. 1996. Endless frontier, limited resources: U.S. R&D policy for competitiveness. Washington, DC: Council on Competitiveness.
22.
De Swaan, A.1988. In care of the state: Healthcare, education and welfare in Europe and the USA in the modern era. Cambridge, England: Polity.
23.
Dickson, David
. 1984. The new politics of science. New York: Pantheon.
24.
Domhoff, G. William
, ed. 1980. Power structure research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
25.
Domhoff, G. William
, ed. 1990. The power elite and the state: How policy is made in America. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
26.
Domhoff, G. William
, ed. 1996. State autonomy or class dominance: Case studies on policy making in America.New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
27.
Domhoff, G. William
, and Thomas R. Dye. 1987. Power elites and organizations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
28.
Etzkowitz, H.
, A. Webster, and P. Healey. 1998. Capitalizing knowledge: New interactions of industry and academe. Albany: State University of New York Press.
29.
Evans, P. B.
, D. Rueschemeyer, and T. Skocpol, eds. 1985. Bringing the state back in. New York: Cambridge University Press.
30.
Fligstein, Neil
. 1990. The transformation of corporate control. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
31.
Fujimura, J.1996. Crafting science: A sociohistory of the quest for the genetics of cancer. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
32.
Gingrich, Newt. 1997. Quote from Speaker Newt Gingrich, delivered at the October 23 Kick-off Roundtable. http://www.house.gov/science/quote_gingrich.html (accessed October 4, 2001).
33.
Gingrich, Newt. 1998. Excerpt of February 12 letter to Science Chairman Sennsenbrenner.
34.
Greenberg, Daniel
. 1968. The politics of pure science. New York: New American Library.
35.
Gingrich, Newt
. 2001. Science, money and politics: Political triumph and ethical erosion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
36.
Greider, William
. 1998. Fortress America: The American military and the consequences of peace. New York: Public Affairs.
37.
Guston, David H.2000. Between politics and science: Assuring the integrity and productivity of research. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
38.
Guston, David H.
, and Kenneth Kenniston. 1994. The fragile contract: University science and the federal government. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
39.
Henderson, K.1998. The role of material objects in the design process: A comparison of two design cultures and how they contend with automation. Science, Technology, & Human Values23 (2): 139-174.
40.
Klare, Michael
. 1995. Rogue states and nuclear outlaws: America’s search for a new foreign policy. New York: Hill and Wang.
41.
Kleinman, D. L.1998. Untangling context: Understanding a university laboratory in the commercial world. Science, Technology, & Human Values23 (3): 285-314.
42.
Krimsky, Sheldon
. 1982. Genetic alchemy: The social history of the recombinant DNA controversy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
43.
Laclau, Ernesto
, and Chantal Mouffe. 1987. Post-Marxism without apologies. New Left Review166: 79-106.
44.
Latour, Bruno
. 1987. Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press.
45.
Law, J.1987. On the social explanation of technical change: The case of the Portuguese maritime expansion. Technology and Culture28: 227-252.
46.
Law, J.
, and M. Callon. 1992. The life and death of an aircraft: A network analysis of technological change. In Shaping technology, building society, edited by Wiebe Bijker and John Law, 21-52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
47.
Lee, N.
, and S. Brown. 1994. Otherness and the actor network: The undiscovered continent.American Behavioral Scientist37 (6): 772-790.
48.
Mann, Michael
. 1986. The sources of social power. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
49.
Markusen, Ann
, and Joel Yudkin. 1992. Dismantling the Cold War economy. New York: Basic.
50.
Martin, E.1998. Anthropology and the cultural study of science. Science, Technology, & Human Values23 (1): 24-44.
51.
Mukerji, Chandra
. 1989. A fragile power: Scientists and the state. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
52.
Mulcahy, D.1999. (actor-net) Working bodies and representations: Tales from a training field. Science, Technology, & Human Values24 (1): 80-104.
53.
National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council
. 1995. Allocating federal funds for science and technology. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
54.
National Science Board
. 2002. Science and engineering indicators, 2002(NSB-02-1). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
55.
National Science Foundation
. 1999a. Federal funds survey, detailed historical tables. http://www.nsf/gov/sbe/srs/nsf99347/htmstart.htm (accessed October 8, 2001).
56.
National Science Foundation. Division of Science Resources Studies
. 1999b. National patterns of R&D resources, 1998(NSF 99-335), by Steven Payson. Arlington, VA: Author.
57.
National Science Foundation
. Division of Science Resources Studies. 1999c. U.S. corporate R&D. Volume II: Company information on top 500 firms in R&D(NSF 00-302), by Carl Shepherd and Steven Payson. Arlington, VA: Author.
58.
National Science Foundation and the United States Department of Commerce
. 1999. U.S. Corporate R&D. Volume I. Top 500 Firms in R&D by Industry Category(NSF 00-301), by Carl Shepherd and Steven Payson. Arlington, VA: Author.
59.
National Science Foundation
. 2000. R&D funding by budget function: Fiscal years 1998-2000. Available at http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/nsft00303/overview.htm.
60.
Navarro, Vincente
. 1993. Dangerous to your health: Capitalism in health care. New York: Monthly Review Press.
61.
Navarro, Vincente
. 1994. The politics of health policy: The U.S. reforms, 1980-1994. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
62.
Noble, David
. 1977. America by design: Science, technology and the rise of corporate capitalism. New York: Knopf.
63.
Rifkin, Jeremy
. 1998. The biotech century: Harnessing the gene and remaking the world.New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam.
64.
Savage, James
. 1999. Funding science in America: Congress, universities and the politics of the academic pork barrel. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
65.
Sennsenbrenner Jr., James. 1997. Charge to committee. http://www.house.gov/science/sensenbrenner_10-23.htm (accessed September 21, 2001).
66.
Silva, E. T.
, and S. Slaughter. 1984. Serving power: The making of the social science expert. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
67.
Slaughter, S.1990. The higher learning and high technology: Dynamics of higher education. Albany: State University of New York Press.
68.
Slaughter, S.1993. Beyond basic science: Research university presidents’ narratives of science policy. Science, Technology, & Human Values18 (3): 278-302.
69.
Slaughter, S.
, and L. Leslie. 1997. Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
70.
Slaughter, S.
, and G. Rhoades. 1996. The emergence of a competitiveness research and development policy coalition and the commercialization of academic science and technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values21 (3): 303-339.
71.
Slaughter, S.
, and G. Rhoades. 2004. Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state and higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
72.
Stokes, Donald E.1997. Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
73.
University of Michigan, Office of the Vice President for Research
. 1996. The future of govern-ment/university partnership: Proceedings of the 1996 Jerome B. Wiesner Symposium. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
74.
U.S. Congress
, Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). 1991. Federally funded research: Decisions for a decade(OTA-SET-490). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
75.
Useem, Michael
. 1984. The inner circle. New York: Oxford University Press.
76.
U.S. House of Representatives
. 1997. Committee on science. http://www.house.gov/science/pressrel/105_24.html (accessed June 15, 2000).
77.
U.S. House of Representatives
. 1998. Unlocking our future: Toward a new national science policy: A report to Congress by the House Committee on Science (“National Science Study”). http://www.house.gov/science/science_policy_report.htm (accessed June 5, 2000).
78.
U.S. House of Representatives
, Congressional Research Service. 1997. Analysis of ten selected science and technology policy studies(97-836 SPR). http://www.house.gov/science/L97-836.htm (accessed January 8, 1999).
79.
Varma, R.
, and R. Worthington. 1995. Immiseration of industrial scientists in corporate laboratories in the United States. Minerva33 (4): 325-338.
