References to the value of preserving wilderness and other natural areas frequently cite their potential value for science and research. Analysis of U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and U.S. National Park Service (NPS) Wildernesses revealed strong differences in research use of areas with similar legislated purposes but under different administrative agencies. Research in USFS areas tends to be much more visitor‐oriented than in NPS areas, where research has emphasized the biological sciences. NPS areas also receive more research use than USFS Wildernesses. Inconsistencies in research management indicate a need for more explicit specification of research goals in legislation or management documents.