<< Chapter < Page Chapter >> Page >

National research and development expenditures

In 1967, total R&D expenditures were estimated at $23.3 billion (or $97.7 billion in 2000 constant, inflation-adjusted dollars), with private industry accounting for $8.1 billion (34.9 percent) of the total, the federal government $14.6 billion (62.9 percent of the total), colleges and universities $.2 billion (0.9 percent of the total), and other sources—including non-profit organizations—contributing the balance. The PSAC-recommended space program accounted for a large portion of the increase in spending.

Nineteen sixty-five marked a little-recognized turning point in national R&D expenditures. During that year, federal R&D expenditures were approximately 51 percent of the national total, with expenditures by private industry approximately 25 percent. Thereafter, federal R&D expenditure would decline relative to those of industry.

The early johnson years

By 1967, it was becoming clear that the presidential science advisory system no longer enjoyed the same level of influence with President Lyndon Johnson that it had during the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations. What was not clear then (and is still a matter of debate) is whether the system’s eclipse was a temporary phenomenon due primarily to the personality and operating style of the president, or whether it was symptomatic of deeper structural problems. One obvious reason for PSAC’s earlier influence was the compatibility between Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy, who had chosen their science advisors themselves. In contrast, Princeton Chemistry Professor Donald Hornig, who became science advisor to Johnson in 1964, had never met the president prior to his appointment. Hornig had been a member of PSAC since 1960 and was invited by Kennedy to become his new science advisor one week before Kennedy’s assassination. Johnson confirmed that invitation in January 1964. Hornig, according to his own recollections, never became close to the president, even though he served as his science advisor through 1968. Hornig, op. cit.

PSAC did manage to maintain its continuity after Johnson became president. Sixteen Kennedy appointees served into the Johnson years; among them, four were reappointed by Johnson. Of the thirty-three who served on PSAC during the Johnson years, twenty were physical scientists (twelve of them physicists), four were engineers, four represented biology and medicine, and the remainder were scattered among other disciplines. In February 1968, Herbert Simon, an economist, became the first social scientist to be appointed to PSAC.

Hornig’s recollections of his tenure as science advisor are notable for their wit and candor. Hornig, op. cit . Although he was never close to the president or fully accepted by his praetorian guard, his OST became fully operational during the Johnson administration. At its peak, OST employed twenty full-time professionals, and retained over two hundred part-time consultants. Despite (or perhaps because of) its impressive staff capabilities, the focus of the science advisory system changed under Johnson. During the last two years of the Kennedy administration, PSAC issued several reports concerned with national defense issues. From 1964 through 1968, it issued twelve reports, none concerned with defense. (Hornig, however, recalls that many PSAC contributions never went to the president or were part of formal reports. Rather, they were transmitted informally to Department of Defense officials.)

Certainly, PSAC anticipated many non-defense–related science-policy debates to come. In 1963, barely a year after publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring , PSAC issued a report on The Use of Pesticides . Of the twelve public reports it issued during the Johnson and first Nixon administrations, four were devoted to environmental problems. But it is questionable if either president took these reports seriously, or ever even saw them.

Although Hornig had little direct access to the president, OST had a considerable influence on government through informal contacts with executive agencies at the staff level, through presidential messages to the Congress, and through R&D budgets. If presidential access was denied to PSAC and the science advisor, access by OST staff to other units of the EoP and to the pertinent line agencies seems to have been better under Johnson than even during the golden years of the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations.

Hornig has lamented that during his tenure the OST staff was often more concerned with establishing and nurturing contacts in the EoP and throughout the executive branch in their own specialties than in supporting the broad-gauged, PSAC-based system whose original intent was to provide policy for issues on the presidential agenda. From a different perspective, OST was beginning to master the art of dealing within the federal bureaucracy, even as the science advisor and PSAC were losing influence on the president. An intriguing though largely unanswered (or even unasked) question concerns the extent to which the interests of PSAC and the OST staff began diverging during the Johnson years. Also rarely asked is the question of whether the U.S. science community had come to equate special access to the president with a coherent national science policy.

Questions & Answers

how do they get the third part x = (32)5/4
kinnecy Reply
can someone help me with some logarithmic and exponential equations.
Jeffrey Reply
sure. what is your question?
okay, so you have 6 raised to the power of 2. what is that part of your answer
I don't understand what the A with approx sign and the boxed x mean
it think it's written 20/(X-6)^2 so it's 20 divided by X-6 squared
I'm not sure why it wrote it the other way
I got X =-6
ok. so take the square root of both sides, now you have plus or minus the square root of 20= x-6
oops. ignore that.
so you not have an equal sign anywhere in the original equation?
Commplementary angles
Idrissa Reply
im all ears I need to learn
right! what he said ⤴⤴⤴
what is a good calculator for all algebra; would a Casio fx 260 work with all algebra equations? please name the cheapest, thanks.
Kevin Reply
a perfect square v²+2v+_
Dearan Reply
kkk nice
Abdirahman Reply
algebra 2 Inequalities:If equation 2 = 0 it is an open set?
Kim Reply
or infinite solutions?
The answer is neither. The function, 2 = 0 cannot exist. Hence, the function is undefined.
Embra Reply
if |A| not equal to 0 and order of A is n prove that adj (adj A = |A|
Nancy Reply
rolling four fair dice and getting an even number an all four dice
ramon Reply
Kristine 2*2*2=8
Bridget Reply
Differences Between Laspeyres and Paasche Indices
Emedobi Reply
No. 7x -4y is simplified from 4x + (3y + 3x) -7y
Mary Reply
is it 3×y ?
Joan Reply
J, combine like terms 7x-4y
Bridget Reply
how do you translate this in Algebraic Expressions
linda Reply
Need to simplify the expresin. 3/7 (x+y)-1/7 (x-1)=
Crystal Reply
. After 3 months on a diet, Lisa had lost 12% of her original weight. She lost 21 pounds. What was Lisa's original weight?
Chris Reply
what's the easiest and fastest way to the synthesize AgNP?
Damian Reply
types of nano material
abeetha Reply
I start with an easy one. carbon nanotubes woven into a long filament like a string
many many of nanotubes
what is the k.e before it land
what is the function of carbon nanotubes?
what is nanomaterials​ and their applications of sensors.
Ramkumar Reply
what is nano technology
Sravani Reply
what is system testing?
preparation of nanomaterial
Victor Reply
Yes, Nanotechnology has a very fast field of applications and their is always something new to do with it...
Himanshu Reply
good afternoon madam
what is system testing
what is the application of nanotechnology?
In this morden time nanotechnology used in many field . 1-Electronics-manufacturad IC ,RAM,MRAM,solar panel etc 2-Helth and Medical-Nanomedicine,Drug Dilivery for cancer treatment etc 3- Atomobile -MEMS, Coating on car etc. and may other field for details you can check at Google
anybody can imagine what will be happen after 100 years from now in nano tech world
after 100 year this will be not nanotechnology maybe this technology name will be change . maybe aftet 100 year . we work on electron lable practically about its properties and behaviour by the different instruments
name doesn't matter , whatever it will be change... I'm taking about effect on circumstances of the microscopic world
how hard could it be to apply nanotechnology against viral infections such HIV or Ebola?
silver nanoparticles could handle the job?
not now but maybe in future only AgNP maybe any other nanomaterials
can nanotechnology change the direction of the face of the world
Prasenjit Reply
At high concentrations (>0.01 M), the relation between absorptivity coefficient and absorbance is no longer linear. This is due to the electrostatic interactions between the quantum dots in close proximity. If the concentration of the solution is high, another effect that is seen is the scattering of light from the large number of quantum dots. This assumption only works at low concentrations of the analyte. Presence of stray light.
Ali Reply
the Beer law works very well for dilute solutions but fails for very high concentrations. why?
bamidele Reply
how did you get the value of 2000N.What calculations are needed to arrive at it
Smarajit Reply
Privacy Information Security Software Version 1.1a
Got questions? Join the online conversation and get instant answers!
QuizOver.com Reply

Get the best Algebra and trigonometry course in your pocket!

Source:  OpenStax, A history of federal science policy from the new deal to the present. OpenStax CNX. Jun 26, 2010 Download for free at http://cnx.org/content/col11210/1.2
Google Play and the Google Play logo are trademarks of Google Inc.

Notification Switch

Would you like to follow the 'A history of federal science policy from the new deal to the present' conversation and receive update notifications?