The article by Frank R. Baumgartner and Bryan D. Jones explores the dynamics of policy agendas and policy subsystems, focusing on how policy images interact with institutional venues to create or destroy policy subsystems. The authors argue that a single process can explain both periods of extreme stability and rapid change in public policy. This process involves the interaction between the policy image—beliefs and values concerning a particular policy—and the existing political institutions, or venues of policy action. In a pluralist political system, subsystems can be created that are highly favorable to a given industry, but other institutional venues can serve as avenues of appeal for the disaffected. The authors use the case of civilian nuclear policy to examine how policy images find favorable reception in some institutional venues but not others, and how the interaction between image and venue can lead to the rapid creation, destruction, or alteration of policy subsystems. They rely on data from various sources to trace the agenda access of the nuclear power issue in each of the policy venues available. The article discusses the concept of policy image and institutional venue, noting that public and elite understandings of public policy problems may change over time. These changes can be the result of new scientific discoveries or dramatic events. The policy image refers to how public policies are discussed in public and in the media, and can be either favorable or detrimental to a given policy. The authors also discuss the concept of conflict expansion, where losers in a policy debate can appeal to those not currently involved in the debate to change the roster of participants. This can lead to a shift in the policy outcome. The article also discusses the role of strategic actors in policy-making, who may search for favorable venues through a trial-and-error process or an evolutionary search. The authors argue that the process of policy-making is not only about incrementalism but also about rapid change, and that the interaction between issue assignment and political rhetoric plays a crucial role in this process. They use the case of the civilian nuclear power industry in the United States to illustrate how changes in policy image and venue can lead to dramatic changes in policy outcomes. The article also discusses the changing regulatory environment surrounding nuclear power, noting that the regulatory environment had gone through a major transformation during the early 1970s. The number of regulations and amendments issued by the AEC/NRC increased significantly, and the regulatory environment became increasingly tight. Finally, the article discusses the changing nature of congressional oversight, noting that changes in congressional activities led to greater regulatory activity. The tone of congressional inquiry shifted from positive to negative as attention to nuclear power grew. The authors conclude that the process of policy-making is complex and involves the interaction between policy image and institutional venue, and that both stability and rapid change in policy outcomes can come from the same process.The article by Frank R. Baumgartner and Bryan D. Jones explores the dynamics of policy agendas and policy subsystems, focusing on how policy images interact with institutional venues to create or destroy policy subsystems. The authors argue that a single process can explain both periods of extreme stability and rapid change in public policy. This process involves the interaction between the policy image—beliefs and values concerning a particular policy—and the existing political institutions, or venues of policy action. In a pluralist political system, subsystems can be created that are highly favorable to a given industry, but other institutional venues can serve as avenues of appeal for the disaffected. The authors use the case of civilian nuclear policy to examine how policy images find favorable reception in some institutional venues but not others, and how the interaction between image and venue can lead to the rapid creation, destruction, or alteration of policy subsystems. They rely on data from various sources to trace the agenda access of the nuclear power issue in each of the policy venues available. The article discusses the concept of policy image and institutional venue, noting that public and elite understandings of public policy problems may change over time. These changes can be the result of new scientific discoveries or dramatic events. The policy image refers to how public policies are discussed in public and in the media, and can be either favorable or detrimental to a given policy. The authors also discuss the concept of conflict expansion, where losers in a policy debate can appeal to those not currently involved in the debate to change the roster of participants. This can lead to a shift in the policy outcome. The article also discusses the role of strategic actors in policy-making, who may search for favorable venues through a trial-and-error process or an evolutionary search. The authors argue that the process of policy-making is not only about incrementalism but also about rapid change, and that the interaction between issue assignment and political rhetoric plays a crucial role in this process. They use the case of the civilian nuclear power industry in the United States to illustrate how changes in policy image and venue can lead to dramatic changes in policy outcomes. The article also discusses the changing regulatory environment surrounding nuclear power, noting that the regulatory environment had gone through a major transformation during the early 1970s. The number of regulations and amendments issued by the AEC/NRC increased significantly, and the regulatory environment became increasingly tight. Finally, the article discusses the changing nature of congressional oversight, noting that changes in congressional activities led to greater regulatory activity. The tone of congressional inquiry shifted from positive to negative as attention to nuclear power grew. The authors conclude that the process of policy-making is complex and involves the interaction between policy image and institutional venue, and that both stability and rapid change in policy outcomes can come from the same process.