IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v30y2003i5p347-357.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Principal-agent theory and the structure of science policy, revisited: ‘Science in policy’ and the US Report on Carcinogens

Author

Listed:
  • David H Guston

Abstract

This paper uses principal-agent theory to examine the structure of ‘science in policy.’ It draws from one in-depth case study of regulatory science in the USA, the production of the biennial Report on Carcinogens by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, particularly NTP's review of saccharin as a potential human carcinogen in the late 1990s. The sources of data include extensive documentary review, observation of two public meetings of an advisory committee to NTP, and confidential interviews with seven of nine members of that advisory committee. The paper elaborates on the environment that precipitated Congress's need for a reliable agent, in the creation of NTP as an intermediary to serve as that agent, in the articulation of an explicit set of terms for the performance of that contract, and in the shirking behavior that agents engaged in, despite such precautions. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • David H Guston, 2003. "Principal-agent theory and the structure of science policy, revisited: ‘Science in policy’ and the US Report on Carcinogens," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(5), pages 347-357, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:30:y:2003:i:5:p:347-357
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/147154303781780335
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:30:y:2003:i:5:p:347-357. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.