This article analyzes presidential science advisor John H. Marburger III's use of an idealized vision of science in his February 14, 2005, address on science policy in the context of allegations of Bush administration science politicization. The authors contend that Marburger's speech is both a performative enactment and an active construction of a linear model of science supported by an entrepreneurial vision of science policy. Although incompatible with the actual conduct of science, this view is rhetorically advantageous for Marburger and the present administration in that it both encourages the demarcation of science from politics in ways that serve elite interests and allows for the negotiation of role tensions inherent in the science advisor position.
Amsterdamska, O. (2005). Demarcating epidemiology. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 30, 17-51.
2.
Aristotle. (1984). The rhetoric and the poetics of Aristotle (W. R. Roberts & I. Bywater , Trans.). New York: The Modern Library.
3.
Atkinson, R.C. (1988). Science advice at the cabinet level. In W. T. Golden (Ed.), Science and technology advice to the President, Congress and the judiciary (pp. 11-15). New York: Pergamon.
4.
Blanpied, W.A. (1988). The limitations of White House science advice . In W. T. Golden (Ed.), Science and technology advice to the President, Congress and judiciary (pp. 39-43). New York: Pergamon.
5.
Briggle, A. (2006). The President's Council on Bioethics: Science, democracy, and the good life. Unpublished doctoral dissertation draft of July 2006, University of Colorado at Boulder.
6.
Bronk, D.W. (1974). Science advice in the White House: The genesis of the President's Science Advisers and the National Science Foundation. Science, 186, 116-121.
7.
Bush, V. (1945). Science-the endless frontier: A report to the President. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
8.
Campbell, J.A. (1997). Charles Darwin: Rhetorician of science. In R. A. Harris (Ed.), Landmark essays on rhetoric of science: Case studies (pp. 3-18). Mahwah, NJ: Hermagoras.
9.
Carnap, R. (1937). The logical syntax of language. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
10.
Ceccarelli, L. (2005). Let us (not) theorize the spaces of dissension . Argumentation and Advocacy, 42, 30-33.
11.
Center for Science and Technology Policy Research. (2005). Presidential advisors series web-page. Retrieved May 30, 2005, from http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/scienceadvisors/events.html
12.
Corn, D. (2003). The lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the politics of deception. New York: Three Rivers Press.
13.
Danner, M. (2006). The secret way to war: The Downing Street memo and the Iraq War's buried history. New York: New York Review Books.
14.
Einsiedel, E. , & Eastlick, D.L. (2001). Consensus conferences as deliberative democracy: A communications perspective. Science Communication, 21, 323-343.
15.
Gieryn, T.F. (1995). Boundaries of science. In S. Jasanoff (Ed.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 393-443). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16.
Gieryn, T.F. (1999). Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
17.
Golden, W. T. (Ed.). (1988). Science and technology advice to the President, Congress, and the judiciary . New York: Pergamon.
18.
Graham, W.R. (1988). The role of the President's science advisor. In W. T. Golden (Ed.), Science and technology advice to the President, Congress and judiciary (pp. 152-154). New York: Pergamon.
19.
Gross, A.G. (1990). The rhetoric of science. New York: Guilford.
20.
Gross, A.G. (2006). Starring the text: The place of rhetoric in science studies. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois Press.
21.
Guston, D. (2000). Between politics and science: Assuring the integrity and productivity of research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
22.
Habermas, J. (1969). Toward a rational society: Student protest, science, and politics. Boston: Beacon.
23.
Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human interests. Boston: Beacon.
24.
Harris, R. A. (Ed.). (1997). Landmark essays on rhetoric of science: Case studies. Mahwah, NJ: Hermagoras.
25.
Hartnett, S.J. , & Stengrim, L.A. (2004). "The whole operation of deception": Reconstructing President Bush's rhetoric of weapons of mass destruction . Cultural Studies ?? Critical Methodologies, 4, 152-197.
26.
Hilgartner, S. (2000). Science on stage: Expert advice as public drama . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
27.
Hyde, M. (Ed.). (2004). The ethos of rhetoric. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
28.
Jasanoff, S. (1990). The fifth branch: Science advisors as policymakers . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
29.
Kennedy, D. (2003). An epidemic of politics. Science , 299, 625.
30.
Keren, M. (1980). Science vs. government: A reconsideration. Policy Sciences, 12, 333-353.
31.
Kistiakowsky, G.B. (1988). Observations on presidential science-advising: An interview by William T. Golden, Summer 1979. In W. T. Golden (Ed.), Science and technology advice to the President, Congress and judiciary (pp. 491-502). New York: Pergamon.
32.
Kitcher, P. (2003). Science, truth, and democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
33.
LaFollette, M. (1990). Making science our own: Public images of science, 1910-1955. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
34.
Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 91-196). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
35.
Laursen, E. (2005, July/August). Bush's science policy: Scientists upset about Bush's cultural war. Z Magazine. Retrieved January 26, 2006, from www.zmagsite.zmag.org/JulAug2005/laursen0705.html
36.
Lyne, J. (1985). Rhetorics of inquiry. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71, 65-73.
37.
Marburger, J.H. (n.d.). An investment in the future. Retrieved November 5, 2005, from http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/scienceadvisors/marburger_investment.pdf
38.
Marburger, J.H. (2005, February). Speech delivered at "Policy, politics, and science in the White House: Conversations with presidential science advisors ," University of Colorado, Boulder .
39.
Mitchell, G.R. , & Paroske, M. (2000). Fact, friction, and political conviction in science policy controversies. Social Epistemology, 14, 89-108.
40.
Mooney, C. (2005). The republican war on science. New York: Basic Books.
41.
Murray, I. (2005, July 21). The nationalization of basic science: Overzealous attempts to "protect" scientific integrity will damage American science as a whole. Competitive Enterprise Institute Newsletter OnPoint, 100, 1-11. Retrieved November 5, 2005, from http://www.thecre.com/pdf/20050901_cei.pdf
42.
Myers, G. (1985). Text as knowledge claims: The social construction of two biology articles. Social Studies of Science, 15, 593-630.
43.
Office of Science and Technology Policy. (2004a, February 18). Statement from President Bush's Science Advisor and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy John H. Marburger III on the Union of Concerned Scientists Document.
44.
Office of Science and Technology Policy. (2004b, July 8). Statement from President Bush's Science Advisor and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy John H. Marburger III on the Union of Concerned Scientists Document and Press Release.
45.
Pfiffner, J.P. (2004). Did President Bush mislead the country in his arguments for war with Iraq? Presidential Studies Quarterly , 34, 4-25.
46.
Pielke, R.A., Jr. (2004a). Forests, tornadoes, and abortion: Thinking about science, politics, and policy. In J. Bowersox & K. Arabas (Eds.), Forest futures: Policy and politics in the next century (pp. 143-152). Lantham, MD: Rowan and Littlefield.
47.
Pielke, R.A., Jr. (2004b). When scientists politicize science: Making sense of controversy over The Skeptical Environmentalist. Environmental Science & Policy, 7, 405-417.
48.
Pielke, R.A., Jr. (2005). Science policy. In C. Mitcham (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science, technology, and ethics (pp. 1699-1705). New York: Macmillan Reference.
49.
Pielke, R.A., Jr. , & Byerly, R., Jr. (1998, February). Beyond basic and applied. Physics Today, pp. 42-46.
50.
Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.
51.
Prelli, L.J. (1989). A rhetoric of science: Inventing scientific discourse . Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
52.
Proctor, R.N. (1991). Value-free science? Purity and power in modern science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
53.
Reichenbach, H. (1951). The rise of scientific philosophy. Berkeley: University of California Press.
54.
Revkin, A.C. (2004, October 19). Bush vs. the laureates: How science became a partisan issue. The New York Times. Retrieved March 13, 2006, from http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/19/science/19poli.html
55.
Rosteck, T. (1998). Introduction: Approaching the intersection, issues of identity, politics, and critical practice. In T. Rosteck (Ed.), At the intersection: Cultural studies and rhetorical studies (pp. 1-23). New York: Guilford.
56.
Sarewitz, D. (1996). Frontiers of illusion: Science, technology, and the politics of progress. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
57.
Sarewitz, D. (2003, April 8). Does science policy exist, and if so, does it matter? Some observations on the U.S. R&D budget. Discussion paper for Earth Institute Science, Technology, and Global Development seminar. Retrieved April 14, 2005, from http://www.cspo.org/products/papers/budget_seminar.pdf
58.
Sarewitz, D. (2004). How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science and Policy, 7, 369-383.
59.
Sarewitz, D. (2006, March-April). Liberating science from politics . American Scientist. Retrieved February 23, 2006, from www.americanscientist.org
60.
Scott, J.C. (1990). Domination and the arts of resistance: Hidden transcripts. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
61.
Smith, D. (2005, September 4). Political science. The New York Times. Retrieved November 6, 2005, from www.lexis-nexis.com
62.
Specter, M. (2006, March 13). Political science: The Bush Administration's war on the laboratory. The New Yorker, pp. 58-69.
63.
Steeger, P. (2005, April 14). Pandora's box-bringing science into politics: The debate on scientific integrity in U.S. policymaking. In Bridges-The Office of Science and Technology's publication on science and technological policy. Retrieved January 24, 2006, from www.ostina.org.html.bridges
64.
Stokes, D.E. (1997). Pasteur's quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press.
65.
Talbott, C. (2005, February 16). Bush team flouts science. Boulder Daily Camera. Retrieved May 28, 2005, from http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/opinioncolumnists/article/0,1713,BDC_2490_3551526,00.html
66.
Taylor, B.C. (1997). Shooting downwind: Depicting the radiated body in epidemiology and documentary photography. In M. Huspek & G. Radford (Eds.), Transgressing discourse (pp. 289-328). Albany: State University of New York Press.
67.
Taylor, C.A. (1996). Defining science: A rhetoric of demarcation. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
68.
Traweek, S. (1988). Beamtimes and lifetimes: The world of high energy physicists. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
69.
Union of Concerned Scientists. (2004a, March). Scientific integrity in policy making: An investigation into the Bush Administration's misuse of science. Retrieved November 10, 2005, from www.ucsusa.org
70.
Union of Concerned Scientists. (2004b, July). Scientific integrity in policy making: Further investigation of the Bush Administration's misuse of science. Retrieved November 10, 2005, from www.ucsusa.org
71.
Union of Concerned Scientists. (2006, July). Scientific integrity update. Retrieved July 11, 2006, from www.ucsusa.org/scientitic_integrity/restoring/scientific-integrity-update-05-2006.html
72.
U.S. House of Representatives. (2005). Restore scientific integrity to federal research. Retrieved February 6, 2006, from http://govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-839
73.
Wachelder, J. (2003). Democratizing science: Various routes and visions of Dutch science shops. Science, Technology & Human Values , 28, 244-273.
74.
Waxman, H. (2003, November 13). Politics and science in the Bush Administration. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee of Government Reform, Politics and Science. Retrieved November 10, 2005, from www.waxman.house.gov
75.
Weedon, C. (1997). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory . Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
76.
Wilsdon, J. (2005). Paddling upstream: New currents in European technology assessment. In M. Rodenmeyer, D. Sarewitz, & J. Wilson (Eds.), The future of technology assessment (pp. 22-28). Washington, DC: The Foresight and Governance Project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
77.
Wilsdon, J. , Wynne, B., & Stilgoe, J. (2005). The public value of science: Or how to ensure that science really matters. London: Demos.
78.
Ziman, J. (1984). An introduction to science studies: The philosophical and social aspects of science and technology. New York : Cambridge University Press.
