Minerva

, Volume 47, Issue 1, pp 7–29 | Cite as

The Rise and Fall of the Science Advisor to the President of the United States

Article

Abstract

The president’s science advisor was formerly established in the days following the Soviet launch of Sputnik at the height of the Cold War, creating an impression of scientists at the center of presidential power. However, since that time the role of the science advisor has been far more prosaic, with a role that might be more aptly described as a coordinator of budgets and programs, and thus more closely related to the functions of the Office of Management and Budget than the development of presidential policy. This role dramatically enhances the position of the scientific community to argue for its share of federal expenditures. At the same time, scientific and technological expertise permeates every function of government policy and politics, and the science advisor is only rarely involved in wider White House decision making. The actual role of the science advisor as compared to its heady initial days, in the context of an overall rise of governmental expertise, provides ample reason to reconsider the role of the presidential science advisor, and to set our expectations for that role accordingly.

Keywords

Science advice Presidential science advisor Science and government Science and decision making 

References

  1. Anonymous. 1945. Middlebury gives Killian honorary doctor’s degree. The Tech 65: 4, June 1. http://www-tech.mit.edu/archives/VOL_065/TECH_V065_S0085_P004.pdf.
  2. Anonymous. 1957. Degree for Killian. The Tech 77: 1, April 26.Google Scholar
  3. Blanpied, William A. 1995. Introduction to impacts of the early Cold War on the formulation of U.S. science policy. Washington, DC: AAAS. http://www.aaas.org/spp/cstc/pne/pubs/golden/golden.pdf.
  4. Broad, William. 2001. Government reviving ties to scientists. The New York Times, November 20.Google Scholar
  5. Bromley, David. 1994. The president’s scientists: Reminiscences of a White House science advisor. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bronk, Detlev. 1974. Science advice in the White House: The genesis of the president’s science advisers and the National Science Foundation. Science 186: 116–121. doi:10.1126/science.186.4159.116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brumfiel, Geoff. 2004. US science policy: Mission impossible? Nature 428: 250–251. doi:10.1038/428250a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Damms, Richard. 2000. James Killian, the technological capabilities panel, and the emergence of President Eisenhower’s “scientific-technological elite”. Diplomatic History 24: 57–78. doi:10.1111/1467-7709.00198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Doel, Ronald, and Kristine Harper. 2006. Prometheus unleashed: Science as a diplomatic weapon in the Lyndon B. Johnson administration. Global Power Knowledge: Science and Technology in International Affairs 21: 66–85.Google Scholar
  10. Dupree, A.Hunter. 1963. Central scientific organization in the United States government. Minerva 1: 453–469. doi:10.1007/BF01107188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eisenhower, Dwight. 1957. Text of address by the President delivered from the oval office in the White House on “science in national security”. November 7: 6. http://www.eisenhower.utexas.edu/dl/Sputnik/PresidentialAddressNov71957pg6.pdf.
  12. Finney, John. 1957. Killian takes the oath as U.S. scientific coordinator. The New York Times, November 16: 1.Google Scholar
  13. GAO (Government Accountability Office). 2004. Federal advisory committees: Additional guidance could help agencies better ensure independence and balance. GAO-04-328.Google Scholar
  14. Glanz, James. 2001. The nation: Blue sky; sure, it’s rocket science, but who needs scientists? The New York Times, June 17.Google Scholar
  15. Glanz, James. 2004a. At the center of the storm over Bush and science. The New York Times, March 30.Google Scholar
  16. Glanz, James. 2004b. Scientists say administration distorts facts. The New York Times, February 19.Google Scholar
  17. Godin, Benoît. 2006. The linear model of innovation: The historical construction of an analytical framework. Science, Technology & Human Values 31: 631–667. doi:10.1177/0162243906291865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Golden, William. 1950a. Conversation with Dr. Lee A. DuBridge, president of California Tech, Dr. James R. Killian, Jr., president of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Irvin Stewart, president of the University of West Virginia. October 25. http://archives.aaas.org/golden/pdf/049_19501025.pdf.
  19. Golden, William T. 1950b. Mobilizing science for war: The science advisor to the president, memorandum for the president. December 18. http://archives.aaas.org/golden/pdf/393_19501218.pdf.
  20. Greenberg, Daniel. 2001. Science, money, and politics: Political triumph and ethical erosion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Greene, Benjamin. 2007. Eisenhower, science advice, and the nuclear test-ban debate, 1945–1963. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Grossberg, Israel. 1974. The special assistant to the president for science and technology, 1957–1968. Doctoral dissertation, New York University.Google Scholar
  23. Guston, David. 2009. Science, politics, and two unicorns: An academic critique of science advice. In Presidential science advisors: Perspectives and reflections on science, policy and politics, eds. Pielke Jr., Roger, and Roberta, Klein (in press).Google Scholar
  24. Hart, David. 1998. Forged consensus: Science, technology, and economic policy in the United States, 1921–1953. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Kevles, Daniel. 1977. The National Science Foundation and the debate over postwar research policy, 1942–1945. Isis 68: 5–26. doi:10.1086/351711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Killian, James. 1982. Sputnik, scientists, and Eisenhower: A memoir of the first special assistant to the president for science and technology. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Kleinman, Daniel Lee. 1994. Layers of interests, layers of influence: Business and the genesis of the National Science Foundation. Science, Technology & Human Values 19: 259–282. doi:10.1177/016224399401900301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kleinman, Daniel Lee. 1995. Politics on the endless frontier: Postwar research policy in the United States. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Krige, John, and K. Kai-Henrik Barth. 2006. Introduction: Science, technology, and international affairs. In Global power knowledge. Science and technology in international affairs. Osiris, Second Series, vol. 21. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  30. Lamson, Robert. 1955. The present strains between science and government. Social Forces 33: 360–367. doi:10.2307/2573008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lawton, Fred. 1950. Letter to William T. Golden. September 19. http://archives.aaas.org/golden/pdf/405_19500919.pdf.
  32. Leiserson, Avery. 1965. Scientists and the policy process. The American Political Science Review 59: 408–416. doi:10.2307/1953058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Marburger, John. 2004. Statement of the honorable John H. Marburger, III on scientific integrity in the Bush administration April 2, 2004. http://www.ostp.gov/html/ucs/ResponsetoCongressonUCSDocumentApril2004.pdf.
  34. Miller, Clark. 2006. An effective instrument of peace: Scientific cooperation as an instrument of U.S. foreign policy, 1938–1950. Global power knowledge. Science and technology in international affairs. Osiris, Second Series 21: 133–160.Google Scholar
  35. Mooney, Chris. 2005. The republican war on science. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  36. Mullins, Nicholas. 1981. Power, social structure, and advice in American science: The United States national advisory system, 1950–1972. Science, Technology & Human Values 7: 4–19. doi:10.1177/016224398100600402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Neumann, Frank, and Harry Keaton. 1953–1954. Congress and the faithful execution of laws. Should legislators supervise administrators? California Law Review 41: 565–595. doi:10.2307/3478195.Google Scholar
  38. Pielke Jr., Roger. (ed.). 2004. Report on the misuse of science in the administrations of George H.W. Bush (1989–1993) and William J. Clinton (1993–2001). By the Students in ENVS 4800: Maymester, University of Colorado, June.Google Scholar
  39. Pielke Jr., Roger, and Roberta, Klein (eds.). 2009. Presidential science advisors: Perspectives and reflections on science, policy and politics (in press).Google Scholar
  40. Pielke, Roger. 2007. The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Press, Frank, and Philip M. Smith. 2009. Science and technology in the Carter Presidency. In Presidential science advisors: Perspectives and reflections on science, policy and politics, eds. Pielke Jr., Roger, and Roberta, Klein (in press).Google Scholar
  42. Raloff, Janet. 1981. Mr. Keyworth goes to Washington. Science News 120: 45–46. doi:10.2307/3966032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rigden, John. 2007. Eisenhower, scientists, and sputnik. Physics Today (June): 49.Google Scholar
  44. Sarewitz, Daniel. 2007. Does science policy matter? Issues in Science and Technology (Summer): 31–38.Google Scholar
  45. Schultz, William. 2001. Advising the president. Chemical and Engineering News 79: 23–27.Google Scholar
  46. Sherwood, Morgan. 1968. Federal policy for basic research: Presidential staff and the National Science Foundation 1950–1956. The Journal of American History 55: 599–615. doi:10.2307/1891016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. UCS (Union of Concerned Scientists). 2004a. Scientific integrity in policy making: An investigation into the Bush administration’s misuse of science. Union of Concerned Scientists. March. http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/RSI_final_fullreport_1.pdf.
  48. UCS (Union of Concerned Scientists). 2004b. Scientific integrity in policy making: Further investigation of the Bush administration’s misuse of science. Union of Concerned Scientists. July. http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/Scientific_Integrity_in_Policy_Making_July_2004_1.pdf.
  49. Waxman, Henry. 2003. Politics and science in the Bush administration. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee of Government Reform. Political Science (Wellington, N.Z.) (November): 13. http://democrats.reform.house.gov/features/politics_and_science/pdfs/pdf_politics_and_science_rep.pdf.
  50. Wiesner, Jerome. 1963. The role of science in universities, government, and industry: Science and public policy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 50: 1201–1207. doi:10.1073/pnas.50.6.1201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Woolley, John, and Gerhard Peters. 2007a. The American presidency project. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California (hosted), Gerhard Peters (database). http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=5968. Accessed 10 August 2007.
  52. Woolley, John, and Gerhard Peters. 2007b. The American presidency project. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California (hosted), Gerhard Peters (database). http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=30416. Accessed 10 August 2007.
  53. Yankelovich, Daniel. 2003. Winning greater influence for science. Issues in Science and Technology 19 (Summer).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Science and Technology Policy ResearchUniversity of ColoradoBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations