technology and culture Book Reviews 501 for the details of his chronology; and, if often dull, it is shrewd and tenacious nevertheless. Laurence Veysey Dr. Veysey retired as professor of history at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and now lives in Hawaii. Science and Technology Advice to the President, Congress, andJudiciary. Edited by William T. Golden. Elmsford, N.Y.: Pergamon Press, 1988. Pp. xv+ 523; notes, appendixes, index. $49.95 (cloth); $24.95 (paper). Some forty-five years ago, President Franklin D. Roosevelt asked his wartime research and development chief, Vannevar Bush, for ad vice about the postwar years: What should the relationship of the government to science and technology be once the war ended? Ever since it was first stated, that query has surfaced periodically. Many answers have been formulated, including Bush’s 1945 report, Science— the Endless Frontier. One part of the answer has been the establishment of federal agencies, such as the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health, to provide financial support for research in science, engineering, and medicine. Another response has been the establishment, disestablishment, and reestablishment in one form or another of an advisory mechanism to the president for science and technology. The editor of this volume, William T. Golden, who at the start of the Korean War in 1950 was called in as a special consultant to Pres ident Truman on this subject, was himself the author of an early study in this field. Entitled “Government Military-Scientific Research: A Review for the President of the United States, 1950—51,” this 432page document unfortunately remains unpublished. However, Gold en’s report led to the appointment of Oliver Buckley from the Bell Laboratories as the first presidential science adviser, a post that, until the launching ofSputnik seven years later, was located within the Office of Defense Mobilization. Golden has retained an active interest in science and technology advice at the presidential level. In 1980, he edited the volume Science Advice to the President that contained contributions by twenty-three authors, including the eight individuals who had held the science adviser post up to that time. In the present volume, Golden has brought together no less than eighty-three writers plus interviews with three other distinguished scientists (Frank Press, I. I. Rabi, and George Kistiakowski). He has also expanded the scope to include science and technology advice to the Congress and the judiciary. The result is a 500-page volume of essays ranging in length from two to twenty-two pages. Former Reagan science adviser George Key- 502 Book Reviews TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE worth weighs in with the longest piece, while his successor William Graham contributes two pages. Harvey Brooks and Jerome Wiesner each contribute essays of thirteen pages, while Solomon Buchsbaum, Norman Hackerman, and Robert Rosenszweig limit their discussions to two pages. The typical piece runs four or five pages. Contributors in that range include, for example, David Hamburg, Richard Garwin, Walter Massey, Simon Ramo, Alvin Trivelpiece, and John Gibbons. President Ford and seven present and former members of Congress, including Robert Roe, John Kerry, and E. Q. Daddario, also have made significant contributions. What is one to make of such a many-faceted and diverse group of contributions? Golden opens with a concise statement of his own in tent: “'Phis book has a purpose. It aims to attract attention to the necessity for quality advice on science and technology issues to the President of the United States. . . .And it aims to stimulate discussion, and to encourage action” (p. 1). Underlying that rather direct state ment is the belief by many in the scientific community that in the Reagan administration, especially during the second term, science and technology have not had the high-level visibility that they had in the Eisenhower and Kennedy years, and to a lesser extent in the Ford and Garter years. President Nixon’s decision to abolish the President’s Science Advisory Committee in 1971 was a serious mistake, it is widely felt, and the time has come, with a new administration about to take office, to bring a committee of the best minds from science and tech nology back into the White House reporting directly to...
Read full abstract