Skip to main content
Log in

Critical appraisal in science and technology policy analysis: The example of Science, the endless frontier

  • Published:
Policy Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  • Alt, James E. and Kenneth A. Shepsle, eds. (1990). Perspectives on Political Economy. New York: Cambridge University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Averch, Harrey A. (1985). A Strategic Analysis of Science & Technology Policy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanpied, William A., ed. (1995). Impacts of the Early Cold War on the Formulation of U.S. Science Policy: Selected Memoranda of William T. Golden, October 1950-April 1951. Washington, DC: AAAS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, George E., Jr. (1991). ‘A perspective on the federal role in science and technology,’ in Margaret O. Meredith, Stephen D. Nelson, and Albert H. Teich, eds., AAAS Science and Technology Policy Yearbook, 1991.Washington, DC: AAAS, pp. 23–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bush, Vannevar (1960) [1945]. Science: The Endless Frontier. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bush, Vannevar (1970). Pieces of the Action. NewYork: Morrow.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byerly, Radford, Jr. and Roger A. Pielke, Jr. (1995). ‘The changing ecology of United States science.’ Science 269 (15 September): 1531–1532.

  • Calvert, Randall L. (1995). ‘The rational choice theory of institutions: Implications for design,’ in David. L. Weimer, ed., Institutional Design. Boston: Kluwer, pp. 63–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, William C. and Giandomenico Majone (1985). ‘The critical use of scientific inquiries with policy implications.’ Science, Technology and Human Values 10 (3): 6–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collingridge, David and Colin Reeve (1980). Science speaks to power: The role of experts in policy making. London: Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cozzens, Susan E. (1996). ‘Quality of life returns from basic research,’ in Bruce L. R. Smith and Claude E. Barfield, eds., Technology, R&D, and the Economy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution and American Enterprise Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, Robert (1989). Democracy and its Critics. New Haven: Yale University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Easton, David (1957). ‘An approach to the analysis of political systems.’ World Politics 9 (3): 383–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • England, J. Merton (1976). ‘Dr. Bush writes a report.’ Science 191 (9 January): 41–47.

  • England, J. Merton (1982). A Patron for Pure Science: The National Science Foundation's Formative Years. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ezrahi, Yaron (1980). ‘Utopian and pragmatic rationalism: The political context of scientific advice.’ Minerva 18: 111–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, Frank (1990). Technocracy and the Politics of Expertise. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilmour, John B. Strategic Disagreement: Stalemate in American Politics. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh.

  • Guston, David H. and Harvey Brooks, organizers (1995). ‘Return to the frontier: The Vannevar Bush report, then and now.’ Annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Atlanta, February.

  • Guston, David H. and William C. Clark, organizers and speakers (1995).’Where are the great works of science and technology policy analysis?’ Annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Atlanta, February.

  • Guston, David H. and Kenneth Keniston, eds. (1994). The Fragile Contract: University Science and the Federal Government. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, David (1995). Competing Conceptions of the Liberal State and the Governance of Technological Innovation in the U.S., 1933-1953. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Cambridge: MIT Department of Political Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodgins, Eric (1955). ‘The strange state of American research,’ in Fortune, eds., The Mighty Force of Research. NewYork: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, Thomas (1989). American Genesis: A Century of Invention and Technological Enthusism. NewYork: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, Sheila (1990). The Fifth Branch: Science Advisors as Policymakers. Cambridge: Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins-Smith, Hank C. (1990). Democratic Politics and Policy Analysis. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/ Cole Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kevles, Daniel J. (1977). The History of a Scientific Community in Modern America. NewYork: Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinman, Daniel L. (1995). Politics on the Endless Frontier: Postwar Research Policy in the United States. Durham: Duke Univesity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laird, Frank (1993). ‘Participatory analysis, democracy, and technological decisionmaking.’ Science, Technology, and Human Values 18 (3): 341–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom, Charles E. (1990). Inquiry and Change: The Troubled Attempt to Understand and Shape Society. New Haven: Yale University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moe, Terry (1984). ‘The new economics of organization.’ American Journal of Political Science 28: 739–777.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, Talcott (1946). ‘National science legislation.’ Bulletin of Atomic Scientists 2: 7–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, Michael Q., Grimes, Patricia Smith, Guthrie, Kathryn M. Brennan, Nancy J., French, Barbara Dickey, and Dale A. Blyth (1977). ‘In search of impact: An analysis of the utilization of federal health evaluation research,’ in Carol H. Weiss, ed., Using Social Research in Public Policy Making. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, pp. 141–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravitz, Jerome R. (1971). Scientific Knowledge and its Social Problems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, John (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reingold, Nathan (1991) [1987]. ‘Vannevar Bush's new deal for research; or, the triumph of the old order,’ in Science, American Style. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, pp. 285–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sapolsky, Harvey M. (1990). Science and the Navy: The History of the Office of Naval Research. Princeton: Princeton University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarewitz, Daniel (1996). Frontiers of Illusion: Science, Technology, and the Politics of Progress. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schattschneider, E. E. (1960). The Semi-Sovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America. NewYork: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapley, Deborah, and Rustum Roy (1985). Lost at the Frontier: U.S. Science and Technology Policy Adrift. Philadelphia: ISI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepsle, Kenneth A. and Barry R. Weingast (1987). ‘The institutional foundations of committee power.’ American Political Science Review 81: 85–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepsle, Kenneth A. and Barry R. Weingast (1994). ‘Positive theories of congressional institutions.’ Legislative Studies Quarterly 19 (2): 149–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigma Xi (1995). Vannevar Bush II: Science for the 21st Century. Research Triangle Park, NC: Sigma Xi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steelman, John R. (1947). Science and Public Policy: A Program for the Nation, The President's Scientific Research Board.Vols. 1-5. Washington, DC: U.S.G.P.O.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teitelman, Robert (1994).The Profits of Science. NewYork: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. (1972). Human Understanding: The Collective Use and Evolution of Concepts. Princeton: Princeton University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinberg, Alvin M. (1963). ‘Criteria for scientific choice.’ Minerva 1: 159–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodhouse, Edward J. (1992). ‘Toward more usable technology policy and analyses,’ in Gary C. Bryner, ed., Science, Technology, and Politics: Policy Analysis in Congress. Boulder: Westview Press, pp. 13–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zachary, G. Pascal (1997). Endless Frontier: Vannevar Bush, Engineer of the American Century. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Guston, D.H. Critical appraisal in science and technology policy analysis: The example of Science, the endless frontier. Policy Sciences 30, 233–255 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004319423297

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004319423297

Keywords

Navigation