The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The fifth branch: science advisers as policymakers
Abstract
1. Rationalizing Politics The Rise of Social Regulation and Policymaking Expertise and Trust The Contingency of Knowledge The Reform Debate An Alternative Approach 2. Flawed Decisions Nitrites 2,4,5-T Love Canal Estimates of Occupational Cancer The Technocratic Response A Critical Counterpoint 3. for the People The Rationale for Public The Expert Agency Scientific Advice and Open Government Judicial Review of Policy The Weakening of the Paradigm 4. Peer Review and Regulatory The Traditions of Peer Review Peer Review in Practice Instructive Failures Regulatory Science: Content and Context Implications for Regulatory Peer Review 5. EPA and the Advisory Board Early Political Challenges A New Cooperation Boundary Exercises SAB's Impact on Policy Conclusion 6. The and Policy of Clean Air CASAC and the NAAQS Process and Standards Redefining CASAC's Role The Carbon Monoxide Controversy CASAC's Effectiveness: Bridging and Policy 7. Advisers as Adversaries The Scientific Advisory Panel Implementing the Impossible Ethylene Dibromide Dicofol Alar A Fragmentation of Authority 8. FDA's Advisory Network The Scientific Evaluation of Drugs Expertise and Food Safety Advice and Decision 9. Coping with New Knowledge The Quest for Principled Risk Assessment Formaldehyde: An Uncertain Carcinogen Conclusion 10. Technocracy Revisited A Public-Private Partnership for Risk Assessment without Politics The Public Board of Inquiry Wider Applications 11. The Political Function of From Advice to Policy Acceptable Risk Scientific Advice as Legitimation: Negotiation and Boundary Work Defining Good Science Normative Implications Conclusion Notes Index
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Jasanoff, S., & Kim, S.-H. (2009) · Minerva · doi:10.1007/s11024-009-9124-4 · Cited by 1,911
Stirling, A. (2008) · Science, Technology, & Human Values · doi:10.1177/0162243907311265 · Cited by 1,567
How science makes environmental controversies worse
Sarewitz, D. (2004) · Environmental Science & Policy · doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2004.06.001 · Cited by 1,194
Clark, W. C., Tomich, T. P., van Noordwijk, M., Guston, D., Catacutan, D., Dickson, N. M., & McNie, E. (2016) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0900231108 · Cited by 568
Here and Everywhere: Sociology of Scientific Knowledge
Shapin, S. (1995) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev.so.21.080195.001445 · Cited by 482
Metadata
- Venue
- Choice Reviews Online
- Publisher
- American Library Association
- Published
- 1991-04-01
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 08
- Pages
- 28-4501-28-4501
- ISSN
- 0009-4978 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-8253
- OpenAlex
- W2167593612
- Cited by
- 1,610
- References
- 0
- Type
- book review
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The fifth branch: science advisers as policymakers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5860/choice.28-4501
- The paper
- The fifth branch: science advisers as policymakers. (1991). Choice Reviews Online. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.28-4501
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.