If you read German, then you might be interested in this review (PDF) of The Honest Broker by Silke Beck, of the UFZ Helmholz Research Center in Leipzig, appearing in the May, 2008 issue of Theorie und Praxis. She concludes:

Um das Kind nicht mit dem Bade auszuschütten, das Buch stellt sicherlich einen wichtigen Input in die Diskussion um Politikberatung dar und bietet einen übersichtlichen und gut strukturierten Leitfaden für Wissenschaftler, um sich im unübersichtlichen Terrain der Politik zu orientieren. Es demonstriert nachdrücklich, dass die bis dato noch dominante Idee des “Schwimmens ohne nass zu werden” illusorisch ist und weist gleichzeitig überzeugende Alternativen aus. Zu wünschen wäre, dass das Werk von Pielke als ein Beitrag dazu wahrgenommen würde, diese Diskussion auch
in der Praxis zu eröffnen, das lineare Modell zu hinterfragen, und dadurch dem ehrenhaften Vermittler mehr Gehör zu verschaffen.

Or in English, go ahead and buy the book, es ist sehr gut!

Chapter 7 of The Honest Broker talks about the role of intelligence in the decision to go to war in Iraq. Today, the Senate Intelligence Committee released two reports (PDF, PDF) documenting how the Bush Administration misled policy makers and the public by politicizing government intelligence. Here is what Senator Jay Rockefeller had to say in a press release:

“Before taking the country to war, this Administration owed it to the American people to give them a 100 percent accurate picture of the threat we faced. Unfortunately, our Committee has concluded that the Administration made significant claims that were not supported by the intelligence,” Rockefeller said. “In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed.”

“It is my belief that the Bush Administration was fixated on Iraq, and used the 9/11 attacks by al Qa’ida as justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein. To accomplish this, top Administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and al Qa’ida as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11. Sadly, the Bush Administration led the nation into war under false pretenses.

“There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence. But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate.

“These reports represent the final chapter in our oversight of prewar intelligence. They complete the story of mistakes and failures – both by the Intelligence Community and the Administration – in the lead up to the war. Fundamentally, these reports are about transparency and holding our government accountable, and making sure these mistakes never happen again.”

I explain in The Honest Broker there is an important difference between serving as an issue advocate and serving as an honest broker. In this situation, the distinction was lost. The Administration had every right to make whatever case to the public that it wanted to make.

However, as the second report linked about argues, it warped the process of intelligence gathering in order to generate (suppress) information that supported (did not support) its desired outcomes. This represented a pathological politicization of the intelligence community and limited the scope of options available for debate among the public and policy makers.

Protecting the function of honest brokering among relevant experts is hard to do.

These are words that every author likes to see in a book review of their work In Bioscience this month Robert Lackey, a scientist at EPA, provides a strongly positive review of The Honest Broker. Here are a few of his comments:

The Honest Brokeris a must-read for any scientist with even a modest interest in environmental policy or politics, and I recommend it especially to scientists unfamiliar with the continuing controversy over how scientists misuse science in environmental policy and politics. . . . In summary, The Honest Broker is an important book, and it should be read by everyone.

Get your copy today!

As I have commented here before, one of the pleasures of writing a book is receiving reactions and comments, especially those from people who you have learned from and respected. Sheila Jasanoff, of Harvard University, is one of the giants of the “science and technology studies” community, and in the current issue of the American Scientist, she writes a review of The Honest Broker. But unlike Eugene Skolnikoff, another giant in the field who recently reviewed the book, Professor Jasanoff is far more critical of the book. However, after carefully reading her review, I remain unclear as to what her objections actually are to the book, and this post explains why.

Professor Jasanoff’s summary of the book, which comprises most of the review is excellent and clearly written. It is clear that she read the book closely. Jasanoff offers two critiques of the book.

(more…)

Today there are no doubt a plethora of jokes bouncing through the interwebs. Whether this is reflective of the mindset in Washington or an attempt at stealth advocacy, I’ve noted the following from Public Knowledge, a public interest group focused on intellectual property rights.

Public Knowledge Slams New Intellectual Property Legislation

As the title of this post suggests, this is indeed an April Fool’s joke. The execution is a bit subtle, but those who dig into the comments embedded in the associated legislation should figure it out.

At the risk of further ruining the joke, I wonder how effective it is to devise a piece of legislation that cobbles together worst case scenarios for content users and throw it into a gag. It’s worth noting what parts of their gag legislation are reflective of actual legislation, but I’m not sure how many people will read deeply enough into this that weren’t already aware of the issues.

So let me raise this question, independent of the April 1 baggage – how effective can worst-case alarmist scenarios be in evoking meaningful action? Does it depend on the issue?

In a recent commentary (PDF) NASA’s James Hansen has called for reform in how the government treats scientists, and the creation of special rules for how government scientists communicate with Congress and the public. Hansen’s commentary raises important general questions about democratic governance and the role of scientists in government. Should government scientists somehow be exempt from democratic accountability? Especially on a subject as important as climate change, where (in the words of Jim Hansen) the future of the planet is at stake?

(more…)

In Spring, 1997 a group called Ozone Action issued a statement signed by six prominent scientists calling for action on climate change. The letter prompted an interesting public exchange among leading scientists about who has the authority and credentials to call for political action on issues involving science, and whether or not the IPCC is the sole legitimate voice. The exchange is worth reviewing and considering, and I’ve reproduced parts of it below..

(more…)

It is really an honor to see MIT’s Eugene Skolnikoff review The Honest Broker in the January Review of Policy Research of the Policy Studies Organization. Professor Skolnikoff has been a leading scholar of science and technology policy for more than four decades. He served on the staff of Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy, and as a consultant to President Carter, in addition to playing many other roles in the academic and applied communities.

He has these nice things to say about the book:

(more…)

Have you ever heard anyone make the argument that we must take a certain course of action because the experts tell us we must? The issue might be the threat of another country or an environmental risk, but increasingly we see appeals to authority used as the basis for arguing for this or that action.

In a new book, David Shearman and Joseph Wayne Smith take the appeal to experts somewhat further and argue that in order to deal with climate change we need to replace liberal democracy with an authoritarianism of scientific expertise. They write in a recent op-ed:

Liberal democracy is sweet and addictive and indeed in the most extreme case, the USA, unbridled individual liberty overwhelms many of the collective needs of the citizens. . .

There must be open minds to look critically at liberal democracy. Reform must involve the adoption of structures to act quickly regardless of some perceived liberties. . .

We are going to have to look how authoritarian decisions based on consensus science can be implemented to contain greenhouse emissions.

On their book page they write:

[T]he authors conclude that an authoritarian form of government is necessary, but this will be governance by experts and not by those who seek power.

So whenever you hear (or invoke) an argument from expertise (i.e., “the experts tell us that we must …”) ask if we should listen to the experts in just this one case, or if we should turn over all decisions to experts. If just this one case, why this one and not others? If a general prescription, should we do away with democracy in favor of an authoritarianism of expertise?

You can hear a 12 minute interview with me on my book The Honest Broker with Radio Radicale (Rome, Italy) here.