In the first part of this discussion I outlined the notion of honest broker as contrasted with issue advocate. The former seeks to expand (or at least clarify) the scope of choice available to decision makers, while the latter seeks to reduce the scope of choice, usually to a single preferred alternative. I also made the case for why situations of conflicting values and political uncertainty make it difficult for “honest broker science” that exists completely independent of political battles over the scope of choice (I also pointed to a large literature that makes this case irrefutably). Now, I’d like to illustrate these concepts with examples, many drawn from the Prometheus archives.

NRC Hubble Report. Last July we commented on a report issued by the National Research Council. The report had the title, “Assessment of Options for Extending the Life of the Hubble Space Telescope.” From my perspective this title would suggest an analysis more along the lines of The Lonely Planet guide than an advertisement for a single restaurant (read the earlier post if these analogies are unfamiliar). But the NRC report focused on advocating a single action alternative rather than any attempt to assess options. Last July I criticized both the NRC and the media on this, not only because the report took an advocacy stance, but also because it memberships was comprised of people predisposed to save Hubble, “Given that many of the members of the panel have at least the appearance of predispositions to preserve Hubble, it would seem that the NRC would be better served by having its panel present and evaluate the full suite of options open to NASA, rather than taking an advocacy position on a single option. At the very least it is time that the media takes a more critical eye on the composition of NRC panels who, with very little scrutiny, provide guidance that influences policy making.” In this case, the NRC committee presented itself as an honest broker but acted more like an issue advocate.

NRC TRMM Report. In contrast to the Hubble Report a subsequent report on the scientific benefits of preserving the TRMM satellite. This report had a different sort of title than did the Hubble report, “Assessment of the Benefits of Extending the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission: A Perspective from the Research and Operations Communities.” Like the Hubble report this committee was also comprised of people with a clear stake in and perspective on TRMM. But a key difference is that the TRMM report clearly presented itself not as an honest broker, but as an issue advocate. The committee clearly would like to see NASA extend TRMM, and it tried forthrightly to present the strongest case it could for the scientific and operation benefits of doing so. This is an excellent example of well-done and appropriately-characterized issue advocacy.

IPCC. We’ve had frequent discussions of the Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change. It seems clear that the IPCC has undergone a transition from a stance more aligned with serving as honest broker to one more aligned with being an issue advocate (there is plenty of data to support this hypothesis, and I’ll post a paper on this subject here as soon as accepted for publication). Last October I wrote, “the IPCC suffers because it no longer considers “policy options” under its mandate. Since its First Assessment Report when it did consider policy options, the IPCC has eschewed responsibility for developing and evaluating a wide range of possible policy options on climate change. By deciding to policy outside of its mandate since 1992, the IPCC, ironically, leaves itself more open to charges of political bias. It is time for the IPCC to bring policy back in, both because we need new and innovative options on climate, but also because the IPCC has great potential to serve as an honest broker. But until it does, its leadership would be well served to avoid either the perception or the reality of endorsing particular political perspectives.” And I have occasionally pointed out the apparent conflict of the head of the IPCC endorsing specific policy proposals while simultaneously claiming to be “policy neutral.” When it offered a wide range of policy options (honest broker) the IPCC was arguably out ahead of policy and politics. Now that it has adopted a much more narrow focus on the parameters of the Framework Convention (e.g., focused on “dangerous interference,” mitigation, the FCCC definition of climate change) not only has the IPCC serving more as an “issue advocate” it has become a servant of politics and policy. This is particularly troubling when policy makers now need discussion of new and innovative options on climate policy.

Bioethics. A very similar dynamic has been taking place in the President’s Council on Bioethics. The chair of that panel, which has a mandate suggestive of an “honest broker” role, has sought to lobby Congress to adopt a particular set of bioethics policies. I wrote of these dual roles, “If Kass wants to be a political advocate, then he should resign his position of the Bioethics Council and join one of the many conservative advocacy groups that are truly independent of the Bioethics Council. If he wants to serve as an honest broker to the nation as chair of the Bioethics Council, then he should recognize that this means deferring his desire to serve as a political advocate advancing special interests. But he does have to choose, because he can’t do both.” Presumably, when one agrees to help decision makers understand the choices and consequences associated with their action, they take on a different role than someone trying to sell the decision maker on a single course of action. This seemingly obvious insight is frequently missed, not only in the scientific community, but on issues as important and the role of intelligence in decisions to go to war.

Other discussions from the Prometheus archives are relevant to thinking about a spectrum between issue advocacy and honest brokering as well, including, various AAAS activities, empanelment of scientific advisory committees, science and the 2004 election, and the FDA and drug approval.

As usual, we’d welcome your comments and feedback. I very much appreciate the efforts of those, on the site and off, who motivated me to try to clarify these concepts in a more understandable manner. I am sure that these same folks will let me know how well I’ve succeeded in this effort.