February issue includes Appendix entitled Directory of United States Government periodicals and subscription publications; September issue includes List of depository libraries; June and December issues include semiannual index

How can decisionmakers charged with protecting the environment and the public's health and safety steer clear of false and misleading scientific research? Is it possible to give scientists a stronger voice in regulatory processes without yielding too much control over policy, and how can this be harmonized with democratic values? These are just some of the many controversial and timely questions that Sheila Jasanoff asks in this study of the way science advisers shape federal policy. In their expanding role as advisers, scientists have emerged as a formidable fifth branch of government. But even though the growing dependence of regulatory agencies on scientific and technical information has granted scientists a greater influence on public policy, opinions differ as to how those contributions should be balanced against other policy concerns. More important, who should define what counts as good science when all scientific claims incorporate social factors and are subject to negotiation? Jasanoff begins by describing some significant failures--such as nitrites, Love Canal, and alar--in administrative and judicial decisionmaking that fed the demand for more peer review of regulatory science. In analyzing the nature of scientific claims and methods used in policy decisions, she draws comparisons with the promises and limitations of peer review in scientific organizations operating outside the regulatory context. The discussion of advisory mechanisms draws on the author's close scrutiny of two highly visible federal agencies--the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration. Here we see the experts in action as they deliberate on critical issues such as clean air, pesticide regulation, and the safety of pharmaceuticals and food additives. Jasanoff deftly merges legal and institutional analysis with social studies of science and presents a strong case for procedural reforms. In so doing, she articulates a social-construction model that is intended to buttress the effectiveness of the fifth branch.

Does Congress do a good job of overseeing the work of the important legislative agencies--the EPA, FDA, OSHA, and others--that it has established to protect the public from some of the risks of modern technology? Combining analysis and anecdote, Christopher H. Foreman, Jr. looks into the oversight tools available to Congress, the variety of interest groups involved, the kinds of issues that arise between agencies and congressional committees, and the personal networks that affect relations between them; and he suggests what Congress can and should do to improve the process of social regulation. "Foreman adds substantially to our understanding of the role played by oversight. . . . A solid contribution toward understanding the nature of day-to-day congressional oversight."--Burdett Loomis, Journal of Politics " This book] is presented clearly, free from jargon, whether academic or governmental. . . . A solid discussion of oversight."--Jan P. Vermeer, Perspective "This is a thoughtful, effectively organized, and well-written book. Those concerned with legislative oversight will find it highly useful."--Morris S. Ogul, University of Pittsburgh Winner of the 1989 D. B. Hardeman Prize given by the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library for the best book on Congress in the twentieth century

Abstract: Presents the hearings about the amendments proposed to reform the regulation of pesticides, pesticide residues in food, and to enhance the public's confidence in food safety.