Abstract
This article explores the 1965 controversy over the Framingham Heart Study in the midst of growing oversight into the management of science at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). It describes how, beginning in the early 1960s, federal overseers demanded that NIH administrators adopt particular management styles in administering programs and how these growing pressures led administrators to favor investigative pursuits that allowed for easy prospective accounting of program payoffs, especially those based on experimental methods designed to examine discrete interventions or outcomes of interest. In light of this changing managerial culture within the NIH, the Framingham study and other population laboratories-with their bases in observation and in open-ended study designs-became harder for NIH administrators to justify and defend.