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

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
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/BF01096655
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 68,908
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

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

Citations of this work BETA

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

Similar books and articles

Tracing the Politics of Changing Postwar Research Practices: The Export of 'American' Radioisotopes to European Biologists.H. N. - 2002 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 33 (3):367-388.
Ethics, Regulation, and Biomedical Research.Matthew Weed - 2004 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14 (4):361-368.
The Role of Science in Public Policy: Higher Reason, or Reason for Hire? [REVIEW]Stephen F. Haller & James Gerrie - 2007 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 20 (2):139-165.
Science Policy From a Naturalistic Sociological Epistemology.Donald T. Campbell - 1984 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1984:14 - 29.


Added to PP index

Total views
36 ( #313,258 of 2,497,768 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #428,370 of 2,497,768 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes