Congressmen and scientists in the making of science policy: The Allison Commission, 1884–1886 [Book Review]

Minerva 32 (1):25-52 (1994)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The Allison Commission focused attention on the administration of the scientific bureaux and its relation to the jurisdictional system in the Congress. The commission also had a more considerable influence on congressional policy towards the scientific bureaux than was previously thought. Legislative recommendations offered by the Allison Commission became law, even if they avoided the notice of congressional opponents through the strategic manipulation of the appropriations process. Hilary Herbert was not a crude enemy of science, but a staunch defender of the obligations of Congress to scrutinise the expenditure of funds it allocated.This detailed political history of the Allison Commission is a necessary part of any history of American science policy. William Boyd Allison and Hilary Herbert were, no less than scientists like Powell, initiators of a tradition which has continued to be important in American governmental science policy.The form of the special committee devoted to scientific issues was initiated by the Allison Commission. It prefigured more recent and familiar congressional inquiries like the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, the Government Operations Committee under Representative Fountain, the House Science Policy Task Force, and the Energy and Commerce Committee under Representative Dingell. The attentiveness to details like pay, printing, food and morale—as small but manageable parts of the larger enterprise—foreshadows more contemporary inquiries into the details of the procedures for awarding grants and contracts and the assurances of financial and scientific integrity. The mechanisms of control applied to governmental science by the Allison Commission—particularly itemised appropriations, but also control over personnel through promotions and control of bureaucratic organisation by virtue of congressional rather than disciplinary organisation—stand as early examples of how Congress may continue to exert its constitutional authority to scrutinise an innovative and entrepreneurial scientific community

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,127

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Commentary: Legacy of the Commission on Research Integrity.Barbara K. Redman - 2017 - Science and Engineering Ethics 23 (2):555-563.
The European Commission as a driving force of the EU’s enlargement policy development and implementation.O. Rudik - 2017 - Epistemological studies in Philosophy, Social and Political Sciences 40 (6):45-52.
Ethics, regulation, and biomedical research.Matthew Weed - 2004 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14 (4):361-368.
Building the Next Bioethics Commission.Alexander M. Capron - 2017 - Hastings Center Report 47 (S1):4-9.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-12-01

Downloads
42 (#390,669)

6 months
5 (#710,311)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

Between American history and history of science.Nathan Reingold - 1996 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 27 (1):115-129.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Forms of Patronage.Stephen Turner - 1990 - In S. E. Cozzens & T. F. Gieryn (eds.), Theories of Science in Society. Indiana University Press. pp. 185-211.

Add more references