58 



might have been, had the leveling off of funds not taken place in 

 the face of a scientific establishment that was still growing". 3 



In 1973, when President Nixon abolished the President's Science 

 Advisory Committee and the Office of Science and Technology, sci- 

 entists lost an important institutional policy voice. As opposition to 

 the conduct of certain major areas of scientific research grew — 

 most notably in recombinant DNA research, in research involving 

 human subjects, and in fetal research — the sense of crisis deep- 

 ened. 



The Environmental Movement 



The environmental movement of the 1960s and 1970s had a sig- 

 nificant impact on science policy. This was true in part because of 

 the perception of a connection between many environmental con- 

 troversies and the applications of post- World War II science and 

 technology. 4 Radioactive fallout from above-ground nuclear weap- 

 ons testing, growing concentrations of air pollution due largely to 

 automobile exhaust, and the serious contamination of the nation's 

 waters from industrial, agricultural, and municipal effluents began 

 to arouse widespread public concern during the late 1950s, result- 

 ing in a host of environmental controversies. Paradoxically, science 

 and technology were both blamed for such environmental problems 

 and seen to promise their potential solutions. 5 



The publication of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring in 1962 sparked 

 a heated public debate over the indiscriminate use of DDT and 

 other chemical pesticides. 6 The Environmental Defense Fund 

 (EDF) was established in 1967 largely to fight the use of DDT, but 

 the importance of EDF extended beyond its specific success in op- 

 posing DDT. Its strategy of combining scientists, technologists, and 

 lawyers also proved later to be a model for public interest organiza- 

 tions. 7 



The environmental movement contributed substantially to the 

 growing criticism of sicence and technology. Public interest groups 

 attempted to open science policy decisionmaking to greater public 

 participation, thus increasing its accountability. Spokesmen for sci- 

 ence funding now had to take into account environmental ques- 

 tions, as well as issues relating to consumer protection, the Viet- 

 nam War, and allocation battles with other social programs. 



However, despite the potency and vociferousness of the environ- 

 mental movement, there was only a minor build-up of Federal sup- 



3 Harvey Brooks, "The Changing Structure of the U.S. Research System: A Historical Perspec- 

 tive on the Current Situation and Future Issues and Prospects," in Harvey Brooks and Roland 

 W. Schmitt, Current Science and Technology Policy Issues: Two Perspectives (Occasional Paper 

 No. 1. Washington: Graduate Program in Science, Technology, and Public Policy, George Wash- 

 ington University, 1985), p. 23. 



4 See Barry Commoner, The Closing Circle: Nature, Man and Technology (New York: Alfred A. 

 Knopf, 1971). 



5 See Roderick Nash, Wilderness and the American Mind (New Haven: Yale University Press, 

 1982); Stephen Fox, John Muir and His Legacy: The American Conservation Movement (Boston: 

 Little, Brown, 1981); and Samuel P. Hays, From Conservation to Environment: Environmental 

 Politics in the United States since World War Two," Environmental Review, 6 (Fall 1982), 14-41. 



6 Rachel Carson, Silent Spring (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1962). See also, Frank Graham, 

 Since Silent Spring (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1970); and Ralph H. Lutts, "Chemical Fallout: 

 Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, Radioactive Fallout, and the Environmental Movement," Envi- 

 ronmental Review, 9 (Fall 1985), 210-225. 



7 See Thomas R. Dunlap, DDT: Scientists, Citizens, and Public Policy (Princeton: Princeton 

 University Press, 1981), pp. 143-154. 



