159 



other "hard" scientists; and (3) analysis of NSF and Federal pro- 

 gram needs in the social sciences,^^® 



A notable reaction to the Camelot affair, and to congressional criti- 

 cisms of it is the report of the joint NAS-DOD-Russell Sage Foun- 

 dation-sponsored Ad\dsory Conunittee on Government Programs in 

 the Behavioral Sciences, released in September 1968. The conclusion 

 regarding the lack of Federal coordination for the formulation of 

 social science policy a;ppears to echo congressional views on this mat- 

 ter: 



Behavioral science activities in departments and agencies generally have 

 evolved in response to program needs, with little systematic attention to overall 

 requirements and direction within the framework of Federal science policies. For 

 all intents and purposes, there is no central forum for dealing with common prob- 

 lems of Jbehavioral science or for giving top-level support to policies designed 

 to strengthen the behavioral sciences as an instrument of policymaking and 

 program operations."" 



The committee recommended that the Office of Science and Tech- 

 nology be given the responsibility for formulating policies for the so- 

 cial sciences ; that mission-oriented agencies establish long-range poli- 

 cies to better utilize social science knowledge and that they employ 

 more social scientists; that the Office of Science and Technology and 

 the State Department draw up long-range objectives for foreign area 

 behavioral sciences research; that a social scientist be included on 

 PSAC, that NSF increase its programs in support of the social sciences 

 (the committee recommended that a separate National Foundation 

 for the Social Sciences not be created at this time), and that a Na- 

 tional Institute for Advanced Research and Public Policy be created 

 to bring together Government officials and social scientists to formu- 

 late long-range programs to solve social problems.^-" 



Conclusion 



In the Camelot episode the Congress was concerned with two prob- 

 lems: (1) Military sponsorship of foreign area social science research, 

 and (2) establisliment of an administrative mechanism to solve prob- 

 lems of funding, ethics, and priority in social science research. Several 

 congressional committees assembled much inform.ation on various al- 

 ternatives to resolve these two related problems. In addition, the inter- 

 est in this episode helped to stimulate a broader inquiry and evoked a 

 considerable literature on the relationship between the Federal Govern- 

 ment and the social science community in the utilization of the social 

 sciences for Government purposes. 



Although military sponsorship of social science research encountered 

 little explicit endorsement and much criticism, it was also found hard 

 to replace : Both strategic and tactical planning needed to be based on 



^•"Dr. Orville Q. Brim, Jr., president of the Russell Sage Foundation was elected 

 chairman. See : NSF Special Commission on the Social Sciences Appointed. National 

 Science Foundation news release. (Feb. 1, 1968), pp. 1-4. (NSF 68-107.) 



"• National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council. Advisory Committee on 

 Government Programs in the Behavioral Sciences. "The Behavioral Sciences and the Fed- 

 eral Government." (Washington National Acadei"v of Sciences-National Research Council, 

 September 1968), p. 78. 



MO Ibid., pp. 4-16. 



