To understand science policy, such as it exists, one must begin to understand the micro-level processes of decision-making for science, because science policy consists of thousands of discrete and generally uncoordinated decisions. This study, which is based on questionnaire data obtained from 188 National Science Foundation (NSF) officials, attempts to explain respondents` attitudes concerning four dimensions of "managed science" (each concerning the role of government in managing scientific research and the production and distribution of knowledge). The four dimensions of managed science are labled "Social Objectives", "Autonomy", "Basic Science" and "Private Efficiency" and each is measured in terms of several questionnaire items. Variations in attitudes about managed science are accounted for by four hypotheses. The "Straight Arrow Hypothesis" accounts for variance according to the psychology of the scientist, especially the degree to which "objectivist" and "positivist" conceptions of science have been internalized. This hypothesis is well supported by the findings. According to the "Bureaucratic Hypothesis", certain norms of science-particularly the autonomy norm-are displaced as a result of bureaucratic socialization(measured in terms of organizational identification, civil service status, length of federal employment). This hypothesis is largely supported, though those employed longer by the federal government are less likely to support social objectives in funding decisions. The "Status Hypothesis" contends that science bureaucrats of higher status (in terms of academic field, university degree and salary) are less supportive of managed science. This hypothesis is supported except in the case of academic field. Finally, the "Science Elite Hypothesis", which contends that those science bureaucrats who feel that scientists comprise a social and/or intellectual elite will have less sympathy for managed science, receives modest support. It is concluded that there are important and policy relevant effects to be understood by further investigation of the organizational characteristics, personnel structures and personnel attributes in the science bureaucracy. "...(W)e may affirm that the pursuit of science by independent self-coordinated initiatives assures the most efficient possible organization of scientific progress. And we may add, again, that any authority which would undertake to direct the work of the scientist centrally, would bring the progress of science virtually to a standstill". -Michael Polanyi "...(I)nsistence on the obligations of society to support the pursuit of scientific knowledge for its own sake differs little from the obligation of society to support the pursuit of religious truth, an obligation recompensed by a similarly unspecified and problematic payoff in the distant future". -Harry Johnson.