Science in the Political Process, Vol 8 Hearings Before the Task Force on Science Policy of the Committee on Science and Technology, House of Session, June 25, 26, 1985 Classic Reprint

Excerpt from Science in the Political Process, Vol. 8: Hearings Before the Task Force on Science Policy of the Committee on Science and Technology, House of Representatives, Ninety-Ninth Congress, First Session, June 25, 26, 1985

Some scientists have occasionally suggested that Members of Congress, when making unwanted decisions about science, allow themselves to be influenced by what has been termed "narrow political considerations." However, from the point of view of most legislators, the consideration, in setting priorities, for science of other factors such as defense needs, national and regional economic needs, and educational policy is not only desirable but an integral part of our job.

Thus, the issue before us is really, in my view, how decisions involving both science and politics should be made. The examination of that issue, which we begin today, will be carried out with great care.

The task force will soon issue a background study on this subject entitled "Expertise and Democratic Decisionmaking." Compiled for us by the Congressional Research Service, this collection of selected readings will help us place this issue in a much broader context, as suggested by its title.

To help us in our consideration of this important topic, we have a small but highly select group of witnesses who will appear before the task force today and tomorrow. We thank them for their willingness to share their experiences and thoughts with us, and we look forward to their testimony.

Our first person will be Dr. Thomas L. Haskell, Department of History, Rice University. Dr. Haskell, we are very delighted to welcome you here this morning.

Statement Of Dr. Thomas L. Haskell, Department Of History, Rice University, Houston, Tx

Dr. Haskell. Thank you very much.

Chairman Fuqua, members of the task force, ladies and gentlemen, I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak before you.

I have been invited to speak not about the "brass tacks" of the very practical and concrete decisions you have to make. I will not offer any advice about that. I am here instead, as I understand it, to speak about the problem of peer review in a rather general, even abstract, way, the "high theory of peer review," if you will.

The agenda for this session sets out three questions. Let me quickly paraphrase them: How can the judgments of scientists and Members of Congress be effectively integrated? At what levels should decisions be made by scientists; at what levels by Members of Congress; and at what levels should some joint decisionmaking process be employed? And under what circumstances should science policy be shaped by perceived social needs such as regional economic growth or campaigns against certain dread diseases, for examples?

Underlying all of these questions, it seems to me, is another, more basic, question. Let me try to put it into words.

About the Publisher

Forgotten Books publishes hundreds of thousands of rare and classic books. Find more at www.forgottenbooks.com

This book is a reproduction of an important historical work. Forgotten Books uses state-of-the-art technology to digitally reconstruct the work, preserving the original format whilst repairing imperfections present in the aged copy. In rare cases, an imperfection in the original, such as a blemish or missing page, may be replicated in our edition. We do, however, repair the vast majority of imperfections successfully; any imperfections that remain are intentionally left to preserve the state of such historical works.