Abstract
There is a useful distinction between the President of the United States and the Presidency, especially important because of the critical role of the President in shaping the public interest. Agencies making up the "institutional Presidency" have evolved over the years to serve the growing needs of the President. As a conglomerate, they provide the closest approximation to a national planning organization that American politics will tolerate. But the effectiveness of any agency is directly related to its usefulness to the President. Within these agencies, moreover, social scientists, among other experts, have been brought into the orbit of presidential power as expertise has become important to the planning process. There they operate in a highly political environment in which they vie for the President's attention with other advisers who, from a different set of responsibilities, may have a different but equally valid view of what is in the President's best interests. Like other experts, social scientists may thus find themselves torn between their allegiance to the President and the professional standards of their own expertise. The dilemma is particularly difficult since their usefulness to the President resides precisely in their expertise and they cannot escape the issue by ignoring or distorting professional standards.

This publication has 0 references indexed in Scilit: