The question that Roger Pielke, Jr., confronts in this book is this: Given the ever growing demand for scientific information and advice in the making of public policy, what role should scientists—including social scientists—play in policy and politics? Pielke outlines four possible roles or modes of interaction, which he presents as ideal types. He makes the case for the fourth role as most appropriate in a well-functioning democracy.
The first two roles are ones that are disengaged from the policy process. The first is the “pure scientist” where scientists decide not to be directly involved at all, telling policy makers instead to go read the literature. The second is the “science arbiter” where scientists respond only to narrow scientifically testable questions but without expressing views of their own about best policy choices.
The final two roles are ones where scientists are actively engaged. The third is the “issue advocate” where scientists take a definite stand on issues and argue for particular policies, using scientific information to make their case. The fourth is the “honest broker” where they become very involved, providing policy makers with a wide range of policy options but refraining from trying to convince the policy maker of the best policy. Where the issue advocate narrows the choices, the honest broker works to expand them.
Pielke suggests that the first two roles—pure scientist and science arbiter—are effective only in policy situations in which there is a broad consensus on values and low uncertainty about outcomes. Such situations, however, are limited. Most situations are complicated by uncertainty and/or conflict over values. Here, “science offers much less prospect of contributing to effective decision making” (53).
But for scientists who do choose these roles and who subscribe to the “linear model” of science—where there is a clear path from basic research to applied research to policy—there is the danger they will slip into “stealth issue advocacy” and unwittingly become policy advocates, failing to appreciate the intrusion of their own values and biases into their views. The problem is that they claim to be acting in the name of science but actually serve as political partisans who are “focused on reducing the scope of choice available to decision makers” (94).
In policy contexts where values conflict or where there is uncertainty about outcomes, the best role for scientists is the honest broker role. Honest brokers, according to Pielke, seek to clarify and expand policy options for decision makers. This is good for a well-functioning democracy because they “help policy makers and the public to understand how scientific knowledge is significant for the scope of policy choice” (152). It is good for science in that the role avoids a “pathological politicization of science.”
The key problem for the other roles, says Pielke, whether they involve overt issue advocacy or stealth issue advocacy, is that they increase the risk of damaging the credibility of science by politicizing science. Science comes to be viewed as simply another resource for groups to bargain and negotiate in the pursuit of their special interests.
This is a valuable and thought-provoking book for students of public policy and for those interested in the role of scientists and scientific advisors in policy making. Through concrete examples and plain language, Pielke succeeds in his goal of providing “conceptual clarity about the choices scientists face in connecting their work to policy and politics” (10). He also succeeds in clarifying appropriate roles for scientists from the point of view of well-functioning democracy.
Pielke's points about stealth issue advocacy and about the importance of policy engagement are well-taken. Scientists should not pretend they are something they are not: value-free experts who present science as the answer to all policy questions. And given the major contributions that science can make to policy, scientists should be actively and openly engaged in policy making.
But Pielke is too quick to downgrade the role of issue advocates. It certainly is agreed that a role for honest brokers on advisory boards and in government agencies should be welcomed. But welcomed also should be is a role for issue advocates in the democratic process as counterbalances to powerful interests or public prejudice.
Pielke worries about the politicization of science but he fails to give us much evidence of this as a serious problem. He gives us the example of the controversy over the book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, in which scientists wrongly invoke science and politicize science to discredit the author. Such politicization, he says, gives scientists a black eye. But he admits this is an extreme example and he acknowledges that scientists—unlike politicians—have great prestige in society.
Against powerful interests and sometimes misinformed public opinion, scientists who passionately advocate for certain policies and who use research findings in their advocacy should be welcomed as a valuable part of the democratic process. To downgrade this role is to diminish democracy as a deliberative process of careful consideration and weighing of all views.
