Comments on: Honest Broker, Part I

By: Roger Pielke, Jr.

Roger Pielke, Jr. — Mon, 30 May 2005 12:34:05 +0000

Andrew- Thanks much for your comments. Let me ask you a few questions — you write, “these are the obvious questions to ask”. Why focus on warming at the global scale versus reginional manifestations of change? Why does attribution to human causes matter? Why focus on predicting the future climate and impacts? You are right that I would argue that the framing of these questions creates an obvious policy agenda! For a more in depth treatment of this see these two papers:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resourse-69-2000.18.pdf

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resourse-479-2004.10.pdf

Thanks!

By: Andrew Dessler

Andrew Dessler — Fri, 27 May 2005 17:18:00 +0000

This is a really interesting discussion. My own point of view is that it is easiest for a scientist to be an honest broker if he does two things: 1) answer only positive questions, refuse to answer any normative ones, and 2) give answers based not on their opinion but on the peer-reviewed literature.

If someone asks “where should I eat?” or “what should I do about climate change?”, a truly honest broker must say, “I cannot answer a normative question like that.” Rather, the honest broker must answer only positive questions. He should force the person asking for advice to reconfigure the request into a series of specific positive questions: “Where is the nearest vegetarian restaurant?” “Where can I get dinner for under $20?” “Where can I get a dinner that follows the Atkin’s diet?” etc. Such questions can be answered without any assumption of normative values.

On climate change, an honest broker would focus on the following question: 1) is the climate warming? 2) are humans to blame? 3) what is the warming predicted over the next century? 4) what are the impacts of this warming? Again, these questions are purely scientific and can be answered without any normative or policy assumptions. In fact, two people might agree completely on the answers to these questions but disagree on policy. That’s OK — the political debate should start with the scientific community’s best guess of the answers to 1-4 (found in the IPCC reports) and then debate what our response should be.

The upshot is that I disagree that science is inseparable from policy. By sticking to positive questions, a scientist can provide input that contains no hidden agenda or assumptions about policy. The key is to manage the interface between the scientific and policy arenas — which is what scientific assessments do.

ps: you might respond that my choice of questions 1-4 on climate change reflects a hidden policy agenda. I would disagree with that. If one accepts that climate change is a political issue worth considering, then these are the obvious questions to ask.

By: Biopolitical

Biopolitical — Mon, 02 May 2005 21:32:00 +0000

Scientists as honest brokers or wily peddlers

I doubt that truly honest brokers can exist. A scientist, or anyone, who is able to offer (seemingly) balanced arguments for and against several conflicting ideas may thereby gain the trust of his audience. He may, unconsciously or strategically, exp…

By: Adam

Adam — Tue, 19 Apr 2005 22:37:10 +0000

Good examples of issue advocate versus honest broker can be found in the President’s Council on Bioethics. Not only does this distinction help us make judgments about Kass’s conservative bioethics agenda, but it also helps illuminate Dr. Blackburn and Dr. Rowley’s way of arguing political points (e.g., more stem cell research)as if they naturally followed from the state of the science (e.g., we don’t know all that much about embryonic stem cells…therefore more research would be a good thing).

Another important set of issues this distinction relates to is the legitimacy or credibility of advisory bodies (and other government entities, scientific publications, etc.). Often legitimacy hinges on appearances of honest brokering and solid, democratic (e.g., accountable, transparent, inclusive) decision making procedures often rely on legitimacy among conflicting groups.

By: Crumb Trail

Crumb Trail — Fri, 15 Apr 2005 18:36:51 +0000

Proxy Wars

In Conflicts of Interest Roger Pielke illuminates the murky battle ground of science politicization. It is important to recognize that the chase of chemical risk assessment (and climate change and many others) putatively scientific debates are real pr…