Throughout its history, the relationship between government and science in the United
States has been mutually beneficial but also contentious. This article reviews the recent
history of this relationship and attributes the conflict to different norms and values in
each of the institutions. A policy culture is the result. It sets the limits of government
action and shapes the policy agenda, the debates, and their outcomes. The evolving
norms of policy culture are examined on the basis of two specific controversies:
pork-barrel support of science and university-industry relations. The article concludes
with a discussion of why the study of a policy culture helps us understand the ways in
which values shape science policy.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bellah, Robert N., Richard Madsen, William M. Sullivan, and Steven M. Tipton.1987. Habits of the heart. New York: Harper & Row.
2.
Ben-David, Joseph.1984. The scientist's role in society. Chicago : University of Chicago.
3.
Brown, George.Opening statement on academic earmarks. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. U.S. Congress. 16 June 1993. Washington, DC.
4.
Brown, Lawrence D.1983. New policies, new politics. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
5.
Carmen, Ira.1985. Cloning and the Constitution: An inquiry into governmental policymaking and genetic experimentation. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
6.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.1985. 1985 faculty survey. Princeton, NJ : Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching .
7.
Carnegie Institute.1982. Annual report of the staff, 1980-81. Washington, DC: Carnegie Insititute.
8.
Chubin, Daryl, and Edward J. Hackett.1990. Peerless science. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
9.
Congressional Record. June 5 and June 26, 1986. Washington DC.
10.
Cordes, Coleen, and Katherine McCarron .1993. Academe gets $763 million a year from congressional pork barrel. Chronicle of Higher Education39 (41): A21-22.
11.
Delgado, Richard, Sean Bradley, David Burkenrood, Ron Chavez, Bruce Doering, Eric Lardlere, Robert Reeves, Mark S. Smith, and John Windhausen .1983. Can science be inopportune? Constitutional validity of government restrictions on race IQ research. UCLA Law Review31:128-225.
12.
Dupree, A. Hunter. [1957] 1986. Science in the federal government: A history of policies and activities. ReprintBaltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
13.
Gore, Albert, Jr., and Doug Walgren.Correspondence from Representatives Albert Gore, Jr. and Doug Walgren to Thomas A. Bartlett, President, American Association of Universities. 18 November 1981.
14.
Hackett, Edward J.1990. Science as a vocation in the 1990s: The changing organizational culture of academic science. Journal of Higher Education61:241-79.
15.
Hagstrom, Warren O.1965. The scientific community. New York : Basic Books.
16.
Judson, Horace Freeland.1979. The eighth day of Creation: Makers of the revolution in biology. New York: Simon & Schuster .
17.
Kennedy, Donald.1985. Government policies and the cost of doing research. Science227:480-84.
18.
Krimsky, Sheldon.1982. Genetic alchemy: The social history of the recombinant DNA controversy. CambridgeMIT Press .
19.
March, James G., and Johan P. Olsen.1989. Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics. New York: Free Press.
20.
Merton, Robert K.1942. Science and technology in a democratic order. Journal of Legal and Political Sociology1:115-26.
21.
Mulkay, Michael.1976. Norms and ideology in science. Social Science Information15:637-56.
22.
National Science Board.1991. Science and engineering indicators 1991. Washington, DC : National Science Foundation.
23.
Nelkin, Dorothy.1984. Science as intellectual property: Who controls scientific research? New York: Macmillan.
24.
Norman, Colin, and Elliot Marshall .1987. Over a (pork)barrel: The Senate rejects peer review. Science228:145-46
25.
Polanyi, Michael.1962. The republic of science: Its political and economic theory . Minerva1:54-73.
26.
Ruscio, Kenneth P.1984. University-industry relations as a problem in interorganzational relations. In Strategic management of R&D, edited by Barry Bozeman, Michael Crow, and Albert Link, 171-86. New York: Lexington Books.
27.
Salamon, Lester M.1981. Rethinking public management: Third-party government and the changing forms of government action. Public Policy29:255-75.
28.
Smith, Bruce L. R.1990. American science policy since World War II. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
29.
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Science and Technology. Subcommittees on Investigation and Oversight and Science, Research and Technology.Hearings: The commercialization of academic biomedical research. June 1981. Committee Print26.
30.
U.S. General Accounting Office.Correspondence from acting comptroller general to Representative Albert Gore, Jr. GAO document B-204687. 1981. Washington, DC: GAO.
31.
U.S. Office of Technology Assessment.1986 . The regulatory environment for science: A technical memorandum . Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
32.
Wildavsky, Aaron.1987. Choosing preferences by constructing institutions: A cultural theory of preference formation. American Political Review81:7.
33.
Wilson, John T.1983. Academic science, higher education, and the federal government, 1950-1983. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
34.
Wolanin, Thomas, and Lawrence Gladieux. 1975. The political culture of a policy arena In What government does , edited by M. Holden, Jr., and D. Diesang, 177-208. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
