During his PhD and afterward, Kuhn was close to heated debates concerning the creation of the National Science Foundation. These debates were wide-ranging, touching upon topics such as the value of “basic science,” the obligations of scientific institutions, and the status of the social sciences. Kuhn was involved via his mentor, James Conant, who was one of the most prominent voices in these debates. In Kuhn’s later writings, he gestures toward this intellectual context as influential in the early days of composing The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. This chapter takes a close look at Kuhn’s involvement and exposure to debates about science funding policy and their influence on the composition of Structure.

Two decades ago, John Urry and I outlined a tentative agenda for the sociology of the environment. Science was seen as implicated not simply as a central and necessary authority in providing solutions to our most perilous environmental problems but also in contributing to those same problems. Yet, what we underestimated at the time was the critical role of governance in science and technology and its role in modulating environment-society relations. For if we are to understand the differential contribution of science and technology to environmental change, we need to understand better the impact of traditional forms of science governance and the potentials of alternative configurations. In this chapter I discuss four paradigms through which science and technology have been governed, situating each in historical context. Starting with the ubiquitous ‘linear model of innovation’ I locate its origins and provenance, how it came to be replaced, at least in part, through a ‘grand challenges’ paradigm of science policy and funding, how this paradigm in turn has been subjected to rigorous analytical critique by a co-production model of science and society, and how this model, in part, is being put into practice through a framework of responsible research and innovation.