Roger Pielke continues his investigation of notion of honest brokers in science policy. He is unpicking some fussy little knots to reveal interesting insights about the role of science advisors in policy debates. The current issue of Mother Jones…

Thanks for the question. We are clearly issue advocates on a number of subjects, such as (1) science should serve societal values, (2) climate policy should encompass a broader discussion of policy options, (3) scientists should be aware that they have choices in how they connect to policy and politics (see the archives and other writings for the details). But even though it is easy to pose it as either/or, the roles of honest broker vs. issue advocate are more a matter of degree than kind. In my posts I have tried to make clear that scientists can be more or less of an issue advocate/honest broker, and both roles are very important to a healthy democracy, but one cannot play both roles at the same time. Clearly, I feel strongly that we have plenty of issue advocates and too few honest brokers.

Roger Pielke continues his investigation of notion of honest brokers is science policy. He is unpicking some fussy little knots to reveal interesting insights about the role of science advisors in policy debates. The current issue of Mother Jones…