Procedural control of the bureaucracy, peer review, and epistemic drift

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

Volumn 17, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 535-551

  Shapiro, Stuart ^a   Guston, David ^b  

^a RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34548709675     PISSN: 10531858     EISSN: 14779803     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jopart/mul026     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Arnold, R. Douglas. 1990. The logic of congressional action. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.
2. Ashford, Nicholas. 1984. Advisory Committees in OSHA and EPA: Their Use in Regulatory Decisionmaking. Science, Technology, and Human Values 9:72-82.
3. Bimber, Bruce. 1996. The politics of expertise in Congress: The rise and fall of the Office of Technology Assessment. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
4. Blanpied, William A., ed. 1995. Impacts of the early Cold War on the formulation of U.S. science policy: Selected memoranda of William T. Golden, October 1950-April 1951. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
5. Breyer, Stephen. 1993. Breaking the Vicious Circle: Toward Effective Risk Regulation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6. Chubin, Daryl, and Edward Hackett. 1990. Peerless science: Peer review and US science policy. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
7. Dupree, A. Hunter. 1957. Science in the federal government: A history of policies and activities to 1940. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
8. Elzinga, Aant. 1997. The science-society contract in historical transformation: With special reference to 'epistemic drift.' Social Science Information 36:411-45.
9. Fischer, Frank. 1990. Technocracy and the politics of expertise. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
10. General Accountability Office. 1998. Federal Research: The National Academy of Sciences and the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Report 99-17.
11. _. 2004. Federal Advisory Committees: Additional Guidance Could Help Agencies Better Ensure Independence and Balance. Report 04-328.
12. Graham, John D., Laura C. Green, and Marc J. Roberts. 1988. In search of safety: Chemicals and cancer risk. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
13. Graham, John D., and Jonathan Baert Wiener, eds. 1995. Risk versus risk: Tradeoffs in protecting health and the environment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
14. Guston, David H. 2003a. Principal-agent theory and the structure of science policy, revisited: 'Science in Policy' and the US report on carcinogens. Science and Public Policy 30:347-57.
15. _. 2003b. The expanding role of peer review processes in the United States. In Learning from science and technology policy evaluation: Experience from the United States and Europe, ed, 81-97. Phillip Shapira and Stefan Kuhlmann. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
16. _. 2005. Institutional design for socially robust knowledge: The National Toxicology Program's report on carcinogens. In Democratization of expertise? Exploring novel forms of scientific advice in political decision-making, ed, 63-80. Sabine Maasen and Peter Weingart. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
17. Haas, Peter M. 1989. Do regimes matter? Epistemic communities and Mediterranean pollution control. International Organization 43:377-404.
18. _. 1992. Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization 46:1-35.
19. _. 2001. Policy knowledge: Epistemic communities in Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 17, 11578. London, UK: Pergamon Press.
20. _. 2004. When does power listen to truth? A constructivist approach to the policy process. Journal of European Public Policy 11:569-89.
21. Hart, David M. 1998. Forged consensus: Science, technology, and economic policy in the United States, 1921-1953. Princeton, NJ: Princeton. Univ. Press.
22. Holzner, Burkart, and John Marx. 1979. Knowledge Application: The Knowledge System in Society. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
23. Horn, Murray J., and Kenneth A. Shepsle. 1989. Commentary on 'Administrative Arrangements and the Political Control of Agencies': Administrative process and organizational form as legislative responses to agency costs. Virginia Law Review 75:499-507.
24. Jasanoff, Sheila. 1990. The fifth branch: Science advisors and policy making. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
25. Kagan, Elena. 2001. Presidential administration. Harvard Law Review 114:2245-385.
26. Kerwin, Cornelius M. 1999. Rulemaking: How government agencies write law and make policy. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
27. Kronick, David A. 1985. The literature of the life sciences. Philadelphia, PA: ISI Press.
28. McCubbins, Mathew D., Roger G. Noll, and Barry R. Weingast. 1987. Administrative procedures as instruments of political control. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 3:243-77.
29. McCubbins, Mathew D., and Thomas Schwartz. 1984. Congressional oversight overlooked: Police patrols versus fire alarms. American Journal of Political Science 2:165-79.
30. McGarity, Thomas. 1992. Some thoughts on deossifying the rulemaking process. Duke Law Journal 41:1385-462.
31. Moe, Terry M. 1984. The new economics of organizations. American Journal of Political Science 28:739-77.
32. Morgan, M. Granger, and Jon M. Peha, eds. 2003. Science and technology advice for Congress. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future Press.
33. National Academy of Sciences. 1985. A chronicle of public laws calling for action under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
34. Niskanen, William A., Jr. 1971. Bureaucracy and representative government. Chicago, IL: Aldine-Atherton.
35. Noah, Lars. 2000. Scientific Republicanism: Expert Peer Review and the Quest for Regulatory Deliberation. Emory Law Journal 49:1033-1075.
36. Office of Management and Budget. 2003. Proposed Bulletin on Peer Review and Information Quality: Notice and request for comments. 68:54023-9.
37. _. 2004a. OMB response to comments on the Revised Peer Review Bulletin. December 15, 2004.
38. _. 2004b. Revised Information Quality Bulletin on Peer Review: Notice and request for comments. Federal Register 69:23230-42.
39. _. 2004c. Summary of public and agency comments on Proposed Bulletin on Peer Review and Information Quality, including responses by OMB. April 15, 2004.
40. _. 2005. Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review. Federal Register 70:2664-77.
41. OMB Watch. 2004. Comments on OMB Bulletin reveal strong opposition. Published online on January 12, 2004. http://www.ombwatch.org/ article/articleview/2004 (accessed December 15, 2006).
42. _. 2003. Public Comments on Proposed OMB Peer Review Bulletin. Published online at www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/inforeg/2003iq/153.pdf (accessed December 15, 2006).
43. Office of Science and Technology Policy. 1985. Chemical carcinogens: Review of the science and its associated principles. Federal Register 50:10372-442.
44. Powell, Mark. 1999. Science at EPA: Information in the regulatory process. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.
45. Robinson, William H., and Clay H. Wellborn, eds. 1991. Knowledge, power, and the Congress. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
46. Sarewitz, Daniel. 2004. How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science and Policy 7:385-403.
47. Savage, James D. 1999. Funding science in America: Congress, universities, and the politics of the Academic Pork Barrel. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
48. Smith, Bruce L. R. 1990. American Science Policy since World War II. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
49. _. 1992. The advisers: Scientists in the policy process. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
50. Union of Concerned Scientists. 2004. Scientific integrity in policy making: Further investigations into the Bush administration's misuse of science. Cambridge, MA: Union of Concerned Scientists.
51. Waxman, Henry. 2003. Politics and science: Investigating the state of science under the Bush administration. http://democrats.reform.house.gov/ features/politics_and_science/pdfs/pdf_politics_and_science_rep.pdf (accessed December 15, 2006).
52. Weiss, Carol H., ed. 1992. Organizations for policy analysis: Helping government think. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
53. West, William. 2004. Formal procedures, informal processes, accountability, and responsiveness in bureaucratic policy making: An institutional policy analysis. Public Administration Review 64:66-80.
54. Zuckerman, Harriet, and Robert K. Merton. 1971. Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system. Minerva 9:66-100.