Given that the United States lacks a coherent national science policy, the question then becomes whether such policy should (or could) be developed in the current political environment. The author explores this question from the perspectives of overall budgetary support, priority-setting, and research relevance, concluding that the exercise of developing a national policy, even if ultimately unsuccessful, could help to reaffirm science's national importance and autonomy and to coalesce its fragmented political support.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Browne, M. W.1995. Science group sees budget cuts as harmful for U.S. research. The New York Times, 29 August, C1.
2.
Bush, V.
[1945] 1980. Science—The endless frontier. Reprint, Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
3.
Chubin, D. E.1985. Foraging at the endless frontier. Chemical & Engineering News, 15 July, 25-26.
4.
Dainton, F.1984. Science policy: Illusion or elusive reality?The New Scientist, 6 September, 45-46.
5.
Ehlers, V.1998a. The future of U.S. science policy. Science279 (16 January): 302.
6.
Ehlers, V.
1998b. National science policy study. Available online at http://www.house.gov/science/science_policy_study.htm.
7.
Gingrich, N. 1997. Letter to [House Science Committee] Chairman [James] Sensenbrenner, February 12.
8.
Guston, D.
, and K. Keniston. 1994. The fragile contract: University science and the federal government. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9.
Kohlstedt, S. G.
1976. The formation of the American scientific community: The American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1848-1860. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
10.
Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), Executive Office of the President
. 1994. Science in the national interest. Washington, DC: OSTP.
11.
Salomon, J.
1994. Is a national science policy desirable and feasible? Paper presented to the Conference on Strategies for National Support of Basic Research: An International Comparison, organized by the Israel Academy of Science and Humanities, 23-26 October, Jerusalem, Israel.
12.
Sensenbrenner, F. J.
1998. Remarks before the URA Council of Presidents Annual Meeting, 29 January, Washington, DC.
13.
Teich, A. H.1992. Discussions of setting science priorities are filled with misunderstandings. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 22 January, A52.
14.
Zeller, S.1998. Newt's science project. National Journal, 18 April, 870.
