48 



proposed Department of Science and Technology. OST absorbed the 

 science policymaking responsibility from NSF, although the Foun- 

 dation was still charged with providing staff support and science 

 policy proposals and recommendations to OST. 21 



This reorganization was brought about in part at the urging of 

 Congress — most notably the Senate Committee on Government Op- 

 erations — which had protested the fact that the President could 

 refuse to allow his Special Assistant for Science and Technology to 

 appear before Congressional committees. 22 This problem was 

 solved with the creation of OST as the Special Assistant was moved 

 from the White House to the Executive Office of the President. 

 OST also answered Congressional concerns over the general lack of 

 coordination and central control of the growing Federal research 

 and development efforts. Thus, some of the principal rationales for 

 the creation of a separate department of science and technology 

 were removed. 23 



Congress and Science Policy 



From the establishment of the Office of Scientific Research and 

 Development during World War II to the creation of the Office of 

 Science and Technology in 1962, the Executive Branch took the 

 lead in the formation of science policy in the United States. Up to 

 this point, Congress played a more limited role in science policy- 

 making. 24 Unhappy with this situation and concerned about recent 

 trends within the Federal sponsorship of research, some members 

 of Congress attempted therefore to strengthen their body's role in 

 formulating scientific research and development policy. A principal 

 concern within Congress was the exponential growth in Federal ex- 

 penditures for research and development. Such a growth rate, it 

 was realized, could not continue indefinitely, and fiscal conserv- 

 atives from both parties sought to reduce this increase. Disputes 

 over the geographic distribution of Federal research and develop- 

 ment funds also stirred interest within Congress. On the issue of 

 policy, many Congressional members were concerned with coordi- 

 nating the research programs housed within the numerous depart- 

 ments and agencies, as well as with improving the structure of sci- 

 entific advice to the Government. 25 



2 ' See U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Government Operations, Organizing for National 

 Security: Science, Technology, and the Policy Process, hearings before the Subcommittee on Na- 

 tional Policy Machinery (86th Congress, 2nd session. Washington: GPO, 1960); and U.S. Con- 

 gress, Senate Committee on Government Operations, Organizing for National Security: Science 

 Organization and the President's Office, a study prepared by the Subcommittee on National 

 Policy Machinery (Washington: GPO, 1961). For a compilation of background materials to the 

 creation of OSTP, see U.S. Congress, House Committee on Science and Astronautics, Creation of 

 the Office of Science and Technology (Reorganization Plan No. 2, 1962) (87th Congress, 2nd ses- 

 sion. Washington: GPO, 1962). 



22 The Special Assistant, for example, was not allowed to appear before Congressional hear- 

 ings on the possible creation of a Department of Science. 



23 See National Academy of Sciences, Federal Support of Basic Research, p. 55. 



24 See Stephen Toulmin, "The Historical Background to the Anti-Science Movement," in Ciba 

 Foundation, Civilization and Science: In Conflict or Collaboration? (Amsterdam: Associated Sci- 

 entific Publishers, 1972), pp. 30-31; and S.S. Podnos, "Research and Development— and the Con- 

 gress," The GAO Review, 5 (Spring 1968), 40-46. 



25 See Kenneth Kofmehl, "COSPUP, Congress, and Scientific Advice." Journal of Politics, 28 

 (1966), 112; and Alton Frye, The Legislative Role in Science Policy: Congressional Perspectives 

 and Mechanisms (Los Angeles: Institute of Government and Public Affairs, University of Cali- 

 fornia, Los Angeles, 1966). 



