¹ Price, Don K., Government and Science (New York 1954)Google Scholar.

² See Caldwell, Lynton K., ed., Science, Technology, and Public Policy: A Selected and Annotated Bibliography, Vols. 1 and 11 (Bloomington 1969)Google Scholar, for the most extensive and thorough bibliographic source through 1967.

³ Denny, Brewster C., “Science and Public Policy: A Literature in Search of a Field,” Public Administration Review, xxv (September 1965), 239–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴ Price, Derek J. de Solla, Little Science, Big Science (New York 1963), 83–86Google Scholar.

⁵ Price, Don K., The Scientific Estate (Cambridge, Mass. 1965)Google Scholar.

⁶ Sayre, Wallace S., “Scientists in Politics,” Science, cl (29 October 1965), 595–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷ Ben-David, Joseph, “Scientific Growth: A Sociological View,” Minerva, ii (Summer 1964), 455–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Oldham, C.H.G., “Science and Social Change: Politics and the Organization of Science,” in Silvert, Kalman H., ed., The Social Reality of Scientific Myth (New York 1969), 203–211Google Scholar.

⁸ Lawrence, Samuel A., “The Battery Additive Controversy,” in Bock, Edwin A. and Campbell, Alan K., eds., Case Studies in American Government (Englewood Cliffs 1962), 325–68Google Scholar.

⁹ Boffey, Philip M., “Nixon and NSF: Politics Block Appointment of Long as Director,” Science, clxiv (18 April 1969), 283–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Boffey, Philip M. and Nelson, Bryce, “NSF Directorship: Why Did Nixon Veto Franklin A. Long?” Science, clxiv (25 April 1969), 406–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Boffey, Philip M. and Nelson, Bryce, “NSF Director: Nixon Admits He Was Wrong,” Science, clxvi (2 May 1969), 532–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰ Garwin, Richard L. and Bethe, Hans A., “Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems,” Scientific American, ccxxn (March 1968), 21–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, Anti-Ballistic Missile: Yes or No? (New York 1968)Google Scholar; Chayes, Abram and Wiesner, Jerome B., eds., ABM: An Evaluation of the Decision to Deploy an Anti-Ballistic Missile System (New York 1969)Google Scholar; Hoist, Johan J. and Schneider, William Jr., eds., Why ABM? Policy Issues in the Missile Defense Controversy (New York 1969)Google Scholar; Kintner, William R., ed., Why the ABM Makes Sense (New York 1969)Google Scholar; Walsh, John, “ABM: Scientists' Loyal Opposition Finds a Forum,” Science, clxiii (21 March 1969), 1309Google Scholar; Walsh, John, “ABM and the Scientists: A Long Dialogue Continues,” Science, clxiii (28 March 1969), 1436–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nelson, Bryce, “ABM: Scientists are Important in Building Senate Opposition,” Science, clxiv (9 May 1969); 654–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Boffey, Philip M., “ABM: Critical Report by Scientists Brings Sharp Pentagon Rebuttal,” Science, clxiv (16 May 1969), 807–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹¹ Hamilton, Andrew, “Basic Research: Congress on Prowl,” Science, clxvi (14 November 1969), 849CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Walsh, John, “Pentagon Promises to Observe Congressional Curbs on Research,” Science, clxvi (12 December 1969), 1386–88Google Scholar; Boffey, Philip M., “Mansfield Amendment Curb on Basic Research May Spread,” Science, clxvii (13 March 1970), 1473CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hamilton, Andrew, “Laird Seeks Industry Aid to Defeat Mansfield Amendment,” Science, clxvii (20 March 1970), 1599CrossRefGoogle Scholar; U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Science and Astronautics, Mission Agency Support of Scientific Research, Report, 91st Cong., 2nd sess., 1970.

¹² Nelson, Bryce, “Scientists Increasingly Protest HEW Investigation of Advisors,” Science, clxiv (27 June 1969), 1499–1504CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nelson, Bryce, “HEW Security Checks Said to Bar Qualified Applicants to PHS,” Science, clxv (18 July 1969), 269–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Richard D. Lyons, New York Times, October 9, 10, 11, and 12, 1969; Nelson, Bryce, “HEW Blacklisting Issue Ignites Again,” Science, clxvi (17 October 1969), 357CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gruchow, Nancy, “Blacklists: HEW Revisions Due,” Science, clxvi (26 December 1969), 1607CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nelson, Bryce, “HEW: Blacklists Scrapped in New Security Procedures,” Science, clxvii (9 January 1970), 154–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹³ Boffey, Philip M., “NSF Budget: House Group Reacts to Data on Plight of Science,” Science, clxviii (3 April 1970), 95–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Walsh, John, “Kennedy Asks More for NSF,” Science, clxviii (17 April 1970), 347Google Scholar; Boffey, Philip M., “Recession in Science: Ex-Advisors Warn of Long-Term Effects,” Science, clxviii (1 May 1970), 555–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar; U.S. National Science Board, The Physical Sciences (Washington 1970)Google Scholar.

¹⁴ See, for example, Gilpin, Robert, American Scientists and Nuclear Weapons Policy (Princeton 1962)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 262–342.

¹⁵ David Nichols has elaborated several of these political styles in “Scientists and Politics,” paper presented at Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association (New York, September 1969); and in “The Political Attitudes of Elite Scientists,” paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (Boston, December 1969).

¹⁶ Merton, Robert K., “Science and the Democratic Social Order,” in Social Theory and Social Structure (Glencoe 1957), 550–61Google Scholar; Barber, Bernard, Science and the Social Order (New York 1962), 93–121Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Morison, Robert S., “Science and Social Attitudes,” Science, clxv (11 July 1969), 150–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁸ See, for example, the case of James Shapiro, who withdrew from research in genetics at the age of 26 after having participated in a team that had achieved a brilliant scientific success by isolating a pure gene from a bacterial virus for the first time in history, in Glassman, James L., “Harvard Genetics Researcher Quits Science for Politics,” Science, clxvii (13 February 1970), 963–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and letters in Science, clxvii (27 March 1970), 1668–69Google Scholar, and Science, clxviii (12 June 1970), 1285Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Greenberg, Daniel S., “The Myth of the Scientific Elite,” The Public Interest, 1 (Fall 1965), 51–62Google Scholar.

²⁰ Don K. Price (fn. 5); and Price, Don K., “The Scientific Establishment,” in Gilpin, Robert and Wright, Christopher, eds., Scientists and National Policy Maying (New York 1964), 19–40Google Scholar.

²¹ Price, Don K., “Purists and Politicians,” Science, clxiii (3 January 1969), 25–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²² Ben-David (fn. 7); Kuhn, Thomas S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago 1962)Google Scholar; Robert K. Merton, “Puritanism, Pietism, and Science,” and “Science and Economy of 17th Century England,” (fn. 16), 574–606 and 607–627.

0²³ Barber (fn. 16); Hagstrom, Warren O., The Scientific Community (New York 1965)Google Scholar; Merton, Robert K., “Priorities in Scientific Discovery: A Chapter in the Sociology of Science,” American Sociological Review, xxii (December 1957), 635–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Storer, Norman W., The Social System of Science (New York 1966)Google Scholar.

²⁴ Derek J. de Solla Price: (fn. 4); also “Networks of Scientific Papers,” Science, cxlix (30 July 1965), 510–15Google Scholar; and with Beaver, Donald de B., “Collaboration in an Invisible College,” American Psychologist, xxi (November 1966), 1011–18Google Scholar; Menzel, Herbert, “Scientific Communication: Five Themes from Social Science Research,” American Psychologist, xxi (November 1966), 999–1004CrossRefGoogle Scholar; American Psychological Association, Reports of the American Psychological Association's Project on Scientific Information Exchange in Psychology: 1, 11, 111 (Washington, December 1963, December 1965, January 1969)Google Scholar.

²⁵ Lewis, Sinclair, Arrowsmith (New York 1925)Google Scholar; Snow, C. P., The Search (New York 1960)Google Scholar; Bernstein, Jeremy, “A Question of Parity: T. D. Lee and C. N. Yang,” in A Comprehensible World: On Modern Science and Its Origins (New York 1967)Google Scholar; Watson, James D., The Double Helix (New York 1968)Google Scholar.

²⁶ Haberer points to Bridgman as an example of the first type and to Wiener as illustrative of the second, 313–18; see also the discussion of Shapiro regarding the second type (fn. 18).

²⁷ Gilpin (fn. 14); see the editorial by Abelson, Philip H., “Social Responsibilities of Scientists,” Science, clxvii (16 January 1970), 241CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for an interesting point of view on this matter.

²⁸ Report to the President on Government Contracting for Research and Development (Washington, 30 April 1962)Google Scholar; National Academy of Sciences, Federal Support of Basic Research in Institutions of Higher Learning (Washington 1964)Google Scholar.

²⁹ Arrow, Kenneth J., “Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention,” in National Bureau of Economic Research, The Rate and Director of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors (Princeton 1962), 609–25Google Scholar.

³⁰ Price, Derek J. de Solla, “Is Technology Historically Independent of Science?” Technology and Culture, vi (Fall 1965), 553–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Marquis, Donald Q. and Allen, Thomas J., “Communication Patterns in Applied Technology,” American Psychologist, xxi (November 1966), 1052–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Allen, Thomas J., “The Differential Performance of Information Channels in the Transfer of Technology,” in Gruber, William H. and Marquis, Donald Q., eds., Factors in the Transfer of Technology (Cambridge, Mass. 1969), 137–54Google Scholar.

³¹ Walsh, John, “Science Policy: Budget Cuts Prompt Closer Look at the System,” Science, clxviii (15 May 1970), 802–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³² D. J. de S. Price (fn. 4), 19.

³³ D. J. de S. Price (fn. 4), 24.

³⁴ Martino, Joseph P., “Science and Society in Equilibrium,” Science, clxv (22 August 1969), 769–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁵ See Brooks, Harvey, “Future Needs for the Support of Basic Research,” in National Academy of Sciences, Basic Research and National Goals (Washington 1965), 77–110Google Scholar; also National Academy of Sciences, Ground-Based Astronomy: A Ten-Year Program (Washington 1964)Google Scholar; National Academy of Sciences, Chemistry: Opportunities and Needs (Washington 1965)Google Scholar; National Academy of Sciences, Physics: Survey and Out-look (Washington 1966)Google Scholar.

³⁶ Special Analyses, Budget of the United States, Fiscal Year 1971 (Washington 1970), 255Google Scholar.

³⁷ U.S. President's Task Force on Science Policy, Science and Technology: Tools for Progress (Washington 1970)Google Scholar.

³⁸ Walsh (fn. 31); U.S. President's Task Force (fn. 37).

³⁹ Walsh (fn. 31); U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Science and Astronautics: Centralization of Federal Science Activities, Report, 91st Cong., 1st sess., 1969; Centralization of Federal Science Activities, Hearings, 91st Cong., 1st sess., 1969; The National Institutes of Research and Advanced Studies, Report, 91st Cong., 2nd sess., 1970.

⁴⁰ Wallace S. Sayre, “Scientists and American Science Policy,” in Gilpin and Wright (fn. 20), 97–112.

⁴¹ Weisskopf, Victor F., “The Need for Basic Research,” Science, clxvii (13 February 1970), 935CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴² Long, F. A., “Support of Scientific Research and Education in Our Universities,” Science, clxiii (7 March 1969)Google Scholar, esp. 1040.

⁴³ D. J. de S. Price (fn. 30).

⁴⁴ Marquis and Allen (fn. 30); Allen (fn. 30).

⁴⁵ See Ubbelohde, A.R.J.P., “The Beginning of the Change from Craft Mystery to Science as a Basis for Technology,” in Singer, Charles and others, eds., A History of Technology: rv: The Industrial Revolution (London 1958), 663–81Google Scholar; see also the Preface to v: The Late Nineteenth Century.

⁴⁶ Nelson, Richard R., Peck, Merton J., and Kalachek, Edward D., Technology, Economic Growth, and Public Policy (Washington 1967), 66–88Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ Gruber and Marquis (fn. 30), 3–8.

⁴⁸ Morison, Elting E., Men, Machines, and Modern Times (Cambridge, Mass. 1966), 17–44Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ Willey, Basil, The Seventeenth Century Background (London 1934)Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ Ben-David (fn. 7).

⁵¹ See, for example, the following: National Academy of Sciences, A Strategic Approach to Urban Research and Development: Social and Behavioral Science Considerations (Washington 1969)Google Scholar; National Academy of Sciences, Waste Management and Control (Washington 1966)Google Scholar; Wallace S. Sayre and Bruce L. R. Smith, “Government, Technology, and Social Problems,” An occasional paper of the Institute for the Study I of Sciences in Human Affairs, Columbia University (New York 1969); U. S. National Science Foundation, Weather and Climate Modification (Washington 1965)Google Scholar.

⁵² Bauer, Raymond A., Second-Order Consequences: A Methodological Essay on the impact of Technology (Cambridge, Mass. 1969)Google Scholar; National Academy of Sciences, Technology: Processes of Assessment and Choice (Washington 1969)Google Scholar; National Academy of Engineering, A Study of Technology Assessment (Washington 1969)Google Scholar; U.S. House of S Representatives, Committee on Science and Astronautics: Technology Assessment, Statement of Emilio Q. Daddario, Chairman, Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Development, 90th Cong., ist sess., 1967; Technology Assessment Seminar, 90th Cong., ist sess., 1967; Technical Information for Congress, Report, 91st Cong., ist sess., 1969; Technology Assessment, Hearings, 91st Cong., ist sess., 1969.