opment. In general, the mission agencies of govern- 

 ment have assumed responsibility and authority for 

 recognizing scientific opportunities and for steward- 

 ship. Given the decentralized nature of American R&D 

 neither the selection of topics nor the allocation of 

 funds is a simple process in government. The fragmen- 

 tation of structure and competence mediates against 

 comprehensive policy planning and analysis. 



In the US the budget process represents the clos- 

 est thing in government to a systematic effort at re- 

 source planning, program evaluation, and integration. 

 But it is a highly imperfect tool. There is no spe- 

 cial budget or special budget process to integrate 

 R&D into a broad S&T policy or national goals. Rather, 

 the budget is prepared and judged on a departmental 

 basis; the total federal R&D budget is largely an af- 

 ter-the-fact-summary of the R&D budgets requested by 

 each agency and justified in terms of their separate 

 missions. The multitude of agencies in the Executive 

 Branch concerned with S&T matters is matched by a 

 multitude of committees in Congress that share re- 

 sponsibility for budgetary analysis and appropriation. 



This pluralistic method of budgeting for R&D makes 

 difficult the formulation of policies and coordina- 

 tion of activities across traditional government sec- 

 tors and independent agency lines. Although some ef- 

 forts are made — largely by the OMB and, to a lesser 

 extent, by the OSTP — to ensure priorities and balance 

 in S&T programs, no integrative mechanism draws sci- 

 ence policy toward a rational approach to problems of 

 choice, of costs and benefits, of needs and opportu- 

 nities. To be sure, the need is generally recognized 

 for some central focus and oversight to ensure great- 

 er consistency and coordination among plans and agen- 

 cies. Regardless of how compelling the case seems 

 for more systematic S&T planning and evaluation, how- 

 ever, the basic fact remains that such a planning and 

 analysis function does not fit easily into the plural- 

 istic form and competitive ethos of American govern- 

 ment with its fundamental emphasis on political advo- 

 cacy, bargaining, and compromise in reaching public 



312 



