People often think of politics and science as entirely separate enterprises. Science is engaged in the high pursuit of truth, and politics is engaged in the baser pursuit of interests. Even for those to whom politics is a higher calling, pursuing justice or fairness, the distinction between these concepts and truth is an all too frequent and vexing occurrence. Moreover, justice and fairness are often impossible to define without reference to interests. Scientific truth, however, is often defined by its disinterestedness.

In this formulation, politics and science are clearly and precisely distinguished by the presence or absence of interests. Despite this demarcation, however, they remain in close proximity: the bright line between politics and science is a fine one.

Science policy perches uncomfortably on this fine, bright line. To one side is the rough and tumble, the horse trading and pork barreling, the colorful bustle of politics. To the other side is the ivory-towered, rational contemplation and methodical pursuit of truth. The traditional concern of science policy has been the transactions across this frontier. Policy for science involves the direction of funds and accountability from politics to science. Science in policy involves the provision of expertise from science to politics. Its central problem in either case is the on-going struggle between the plausibly corrupting influence of politics as usual and the potentially unaccountable self-governance of an authoritative professional community.