and regulations intended to mitigate the adverse effects — or feared 

 effects — of scientific and technological work. 



Despite the complexity of these issues and the difficulty of the 

 allocation decision, no single, formalized science policy has ever 

 been developed within the United States. Nevertheless, even 

 though there is no clearly-stated and coordinated "policy" for sci- 

 ence established by the Federal Government, funding and regula- 

 tory decisions made by the various agencies involved in research 

 and development have established a de facto science policy. The 

 Federal support of science is, and always has been, accomplished 

 through a pluralistic, interrelated system. As Presidential Science 

 Advisor Donald F. Hornig bluntly asserted: 



There are really many national policies for science. So 

 far, the support of science in this country has been based 

 partly on the notion that (via the National Science Foun- 

 dation) there should be direct support of science as science. 

 But the greater part of our support of science comes from 

 recognizing that, to fulfill the functions of various agen- 

 cies, we have to support research and development .... 



Oh, one can talk about a policy, say for support of sci- 

 ence in the universities — this is an area that is sufficiently 

 definable to use the word policy. But I don't think a gener- 

 al policy for science will ever exist. 3 



The direction of science in the United States (and other countries 

 as well) was heavily influenced by economic incentives from Gov- 

 ernment, industry, and private foundations. Since World War II, 

 those incentives have increasingly come from Government. The 

 problems individual scientists chose to study did not always arise 

 purely from their intellectual curiosity. In some instances, scien- 

 tists simply pursued those research problems that someone had de- 

 cided to fund. In consequence, greater emphasis has been placed, 

 for example, on cures for cancer than on its prevention — on coal 

 and nuclear energy than on alternative energy sources. 



Scholars and decisionmakers have yet to reach a consensus on 

 the extent to which the course of science is socially directed or in- 

 ternally directed. No doubt, it is a complex blend of the two. How- 

 ever, to the extent that the former is true, the nation's science 

 policy takes on a special importance — whether that policy be care- 

 fully conceived and planned or be the cumulation of uncoordinated 

 agency policies. Funding patterns and support systems can and do 

 make a big difference in the type of research undertaken. 



National science policy has been shaped and formulated within 

 Congress and the Executive Office of the President, frequently with 

 little coordination. Because of the pluralistic nature of the nation's 

 research establishment, the individual Federal agencies have also 

 played a major role in the development of science policy. This 

 study will include some discussion of all these elements, but its 

 particular emphasis will be on the role of Congress. 



This history is presented chronologically. Chapter II provides an 

 overview of Government/science relations prior to 1940. Chapter 



3 Donald F. Hornig, quoted in "White House Superstructure for Science," Chemical & Engi- 

 neering News, 42 (October 19, 1964), 79. 



