Dear readers: I'm working on something and could use some research help from any intrepid minds. It seems to me almost indisputable that John Marburger, who assumed his post in 2001 and has continued it now into late 2007, is the longest serving presidential science adviser in history. A quick glance at the terms of previous science advisers--see here--strongly suggests that this is so. However, you know how it goes with government: There are technical details about when the adviser was actually confirmed, when he actually departed, and so forth.
So: Does anyone disagree with me that Marburger is the longest serving adviser in history? And, does anyone know how we could get the actual precise dates for the terms of each adviser so as to prove it for sure?
P.S.--Last week I did a DeSmogBlog item about Marburger declaring that the earth would become "unlivable" if global warming goes unchecked. It was entitled "John Marburger, Climate Alarmist?" You can read it here.
- Log in to post comments
Chris, when in doubt, start with Wikipedia, which can at least give you some dates to start with, if not exact confirmation and resignation dates. Because of FDR's many terms of presidency, Vannevar Bush outstrips any other advisor in his time of service.
Emily,
Technically I'm not counting Vannevar Bush as a presidential science adviser. He was highly influential, but the science advisers officially start in the Eisenhower administration....
When in doubt, check with OSTP. They have month and year from the beginning of Reagan's first term, and specific dates of service from 1986.
Quick perusal suggests your hypothesis holds true. Even if you counted V. Bush's service as head of the Office of Scientific Research and Development as being the President's Science Advisor (which I would not, OSRD was much closer to the NSF, or Defense Research and Engineering than OSTP), that was at most 6 years of service (1941-1947), and Marburger's tenure will pass that at the end of October.
Now this history is decidedly focused on the last chunk of the 20th century. As far as I know there weren't any formal positions like a science advisor prior to that time, but there may have been informal science advisors to prior Presidents.
For those too young to remember or not well-read on the history of technology in WWII and immediately after, I suggest two books that I reviewed:
Endless Frontier: Vannevar Bush, Engineer of the American Century by G. Pascal Zachary
http://www.scienceshelf.com/EndlessFrontier.htm
and
Tuxedo Park: A Wall Street Tycoon and the Secret Palace of Science that Changed the Course of World War II by Jennet Conant
http://www.scienceshelf.com/TuxedoPark.htm
Perhaps V. Bush isn't officially a "science advisor" - but it was his work that carved out the space for there to be a science advisor to the President and he was afforded the power and influence to act in that capacity. While scholars may debate whether his influence continued under Truman, especially given Bush's desire to essentially take himself out of the advisory role by dismantling the Office for Science Research and Development, he remained as a de facto science advisor and played an important role in creating NSF and advancing other science initiatives. Granted, the official Science Advisor didn't come along until Eisenhower's creation of that post, along with the President's Science Advisory Council - but I would argue that discounting V. Bush, Lillienthal, and others that played a crucial role in the stand up of TVA and NACA during the inter-war years does a disservice to those trying to understand where the post of Science Advisor came from.
Emily, I think the functions of a presidential science advisor and the head of a national research agency are very different. Vannevar Bush served in several government positions, but they were in the second category. If I pushed your perspective to an extreme, it would suggest that the Director of the National Science Foundation and the President's Science Advisor do the same thing. The Science Advisor, certainly in the capacity of running the Office of Science and Technology Policy, is charged with coordinating national science and technology policy. The NSF Director manages the research programs and facilities of the Foundation - a detailed portfolio to be sure, but one that is limited to certain fields of research and certain kinds of work.
I think the same argument applies to your other examples. The Tennessee Valley Authority and the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics had very specific roles to play, and were well served by individuals (including V. Bush at NACA) focused on those specific parts of national science and technology activity. A Science Advisor needs a broader perspective, which is tough to find among experts with relatively narrow areas of focus.