What do you think?
Rate this book
The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics
For scientists seeking to play a positive role in policy and politics and contribute to the sustainability of the scientific enterprise, scientists have choices in what role they play. This book is about understanding this choice. Rather than prescribing what course of action each scientist ought to take, the book aims to identify a range of options. Using examples from a range of scientific controversies, The Honest Broker challenges us all - scientists, politicians and citizens - to think carefully about how best science can contribute to policy-making and a healthy democracy.
188 pages, Paperback
First published April 19, 2007
25 people are currently reading
459 people want to read
About the author
Roger A. Pielke Jr.
9 books21 followersRoger A. Pielke, Jr. (born November 2, 1968) is an American professor in the Environmental Studies Program and a Fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) where he served as Director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado Boulder from 2001 to 2007. Pielke was a visiting scholar at Oxford University's James Martin Institute for Science and Civilization in the Said Business School in the 2007-2008 academic year. His interests include understanding the politicization of science, decision making under uncertainty, and policy education for scientists in areas such as climate change, disaster mitigation, and world trade.
Son of author Roger A. Pielke Sr.
Son of author Roger A. Pielke Sr.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews
November 15, 2024
Had to read it for class to better understand the role of science in politics and vice versa.
Overall an easily digestible read!
Now onward to the paper ...
Overall an easily digestible read!
Now onward to the paper ...
July 29, 2011
I really enjoyed this book. Pielke gives a fair treatment to different roles scientists can play in the political landscape. His major argument is that the roles we play are largely based on whether or not there is a value consensus on a political decision and how much uncertainty there is relating what we currently know and the possible outcomes.
He argues that since many of the major issues we deal with today either suffer from low value consensus and high uncertainty, it is difficult for scientists to remain objective. Rather, there is a small spectrum of roles that scientists play (either as pawns for politicians or as 'pure' basic scientists/researchers). He leaves it to the reader to decide what role we want to play, but advocates taking a position as 'honest broker of alternative policies', which in short means being the guy who says, "How about these other ideas?" instead of taking a position on currently debated topics.
This was overall, a nice and quick read, easy to follow and informative.
He argues that since many of the major issues we deal with today either suffer from low value consensus and high uncertainty, it is difficult for scientists to remain objective. Rather, there is a small spectrum of roles that scientists play (either as pawns for politicians or as 'pure' basic scientists/researchers). He leaves it to the reader to decide what role we want to play, but advocates taking a position as 'honest broker of alternative policies', which in short means being the guy who says, "How about these other ideas?" instead of taking a position on currently debated topics.
This was overall, a nice and quick read, easy to follow and informative.
July 5, 2012
Pielke uses a fairly reductionist typology to think about scientists' options with regard to not just policy but also political uses of their research. He pushes for a stance that allows scientists to provide input into policy decisions without, to his mind, compromising the sanctity of science's claims of providing impartial empirical evidence. He believes that scientists who advocate for policies undermine the very foundations of their enterprise, and he might be right. But, at the same time, in an era in which (as Ron Suskind helped us understand) many in power do not actually give a fig about a "reality-based" universe, possibly scientists have little choice but wade into the mire. Too, it is rather naive to assume (as the Science and Technology Policy folk have clued us in to) that science is as "pure" in its pursuit of "truth" (well, "Truth", too) as some scientists would have us believe.
Still, the book serves as an interesting peg upon which to hang certain discussions, and serves up some handy heuristics that provide a good entry point for a conversation with undergraduates or those new to scientific policy about the nature of the science/policy dynamic.
Still, the book serves as an interesting peg upon which to hang certain discussions, and serves up some handy heuristics that provide a good entry point for a conversation with undergraduates or those new to scientific policy about the nature of the science/policy dynamic.
June 21, 2025
I spent a full hour reading through the 2nd chapter, all 10 pages of it, and Pielke's 2x2 table 2.1, which seeks to classify science as taking on one of four roles:
1) Pure Science - something that probably only existed historically when gentlemen scientists were self-funding their inquiries into whatever captured their interest. Science totally disconnected w/ politics or policy and which only seeks to further our understanding of the world.
2) Issue Advocacy - the scientist (whether consciously or not) seeks to advocate for a particular societal outcome with their expertise, often engaging directly in the political process.
3) Science Arbiter - a scientist of group of scientists attempt to give definitive scientific answers to factual questions relevant to policy debates. The assumption is that a better understanding of the facts surrounding an issue will lead to a better policy decision and societal outcome. Importantly, scientists in this role don't offer unsolicited advice, don't attach value judgements to advice, and only offer fact based information.
4) Honest Broker - the scientists recognize that there are multiple competing values and different desired outcomes in a given decision making context. They provide a suite of possible policy decisions / social courses to be undertaken and endeavor to provide the most accurate predictions as to outcomes across scenarios.
The axes of the table were view of science and view of democracy, and were divided into linear model/stakeholder model for the former and a Madisonian /Schattschneider perspective for the latter. The descriptions for all four of these characteristics were cursory so I was left trying to puzzle through exactly what this table was really saying. In the end I came to the conclusion that I both need more info for all four axis traits to understand Pielke's categorization and that the categorization only makes sense for half given what info I have.
In Chapter 3 Pielke gives a definition of science as the systematic pursuit of knowledge, though as he points out this is so broad a definition that it also encapsulates military intelligence.
In chapter 4 Pielke points out that science alone is only useful in resolving contentions arising from a lack of information. Debates that are fundamentally values based can't be resolved with science. While this is very obvious, Pielke points out that partisans often attempt to covertly masquerade a values disagreement as a fact-based disagreement, and then use science to win the fact based disagreement (e.g. climate change denialism under the guise of scientific uncertainty). Pielke then wanders into a rather odd presentation of the abortion debate, as if one side were purely scientifically motivated and the other were purely values driven. He claims that scientific information can't contribute to decisions on abortion b/c it is a values issue. I have to believe this is a legacy of this being written in 2007 when that debate was even more heated than now. For many, scientific understanding of when a fetus becomes capable of feeling pain and cognition shapes their stance on abortion. In this case science can and should inform decisions, though it won't resolve the religious-values based opposition of many. It also seems worth addressing that science and scientists share common values around a a fact-based approach to problem resolution that is not shared by others. That is to say, science is itself value-based. It seems this is going to inevitably put science at conflict with alternative values. We'll see where he's going w/ this, but I guess I'd disagree that science is only useful in resolving disputes of low uncertainty w/ shared values. When people's values differ they can still find commonalities and then proceed along a rational basis for satisfying the most common desires possible.
Ch 5 digs further into the linear model which assumes sciences goes from basic->applied->development->application->societal benefit. Pielke argues that the scientific community primarily values pursuing knowledge for its own sake but came to justify this pursuit in the mid 1900's in terms of the societal benefits the publicly funded yet unregulated pursuit of knowledge can produce. He asserts that scientists viewed basic research as 'pure' and of nobler pursuit (perhaps true in the 1800s but this elides a great number of strongly public minded scientists). And he points out that there's some inherent conflict in the socio-political bargain struck by the scientific community: governments believe funding basic research is necessary to produce social benefits, whereas scientists want to pursue basic research for knowledge's sake without the pressure to produce social benefits. Pielke keeps asserting that this linear model doesn't match reality or fails to deliver results, but has yet to provide an actual critique of it at this point. He asserts that it persisted in the face of schizophrenic double talk over the role of basic research b/c both parties were happy with the in the cold war period. That sounds like a system that was working to me... A couple of good points in this chapter 1) the strong discordance between scientists who value long term accumulation of generalized knowledge and politicians in charge of funding who want measurable returns on investment in time frames short enough to satisfy election cycles, 2) the tension in a democratic system that expects political accountability for the spending of public funds with a scientific system that desires self-assessment and no political oversight, 3) the growing lack of trust in science publicly is at least partly due to the role of science in producing many of our modern social problems (e.g. antibiotic resistant bacteria, nuclear proliferation and pollution, AI threatening job security), whereas in the past science created only solutions, 4) (implicit) increasing strenuousness in demands for societal benefits from govt as the money tightens up in a post cold war USA . Pielke's critique seems based on the notion that a linear model of science necessarily produces stealth advocacy amongst scientists or those using science. But he seems to be conflating the actions of individual scientists with the societal organziation for the funding and distribution of benefits of science. While I certainly agree that the idea of science as objective and separate from cultural values or government objectives is mythical, that doesn't mean it's not an ideal worth striving for. Likewise I don't see that it follows that a linear model necessarily produces the negative outcomes he's asserting when we recognize our own subjectivity. Pielke is trying to break down the notion of separation between applied and basic research, but he doesn't address the underlying reasons for the existence of that separation. Much science of potentail future societal value is not commercially valuable in the present. Some never will be. But science and society as a whole benefit from our generally increased understanding of the functioning of nature (not just the pursuit of knowledge, which is a bad definition of science). The fact that basic science has its own values and isn't completely objective doesn't mean that it's not worth funding separately and protecting. And Pielke elides the entire field of applied science and the thousands of university or government employed scientists whose primary focus is to produce those societal benefits (though that number is rapidly diminishing given our current crisis of funding in science). Let's see what the next few chapters have to say.
Ch.6 really don't see the analogy between invasion of Iraq and science communication to be as illustrative/relevant as Pielke thinks it is.
Generally agree w/ central thesis that 'stealth science advocacy' is damaging to both politics and science, that we need to be honest about when an issue is in conflict b/c of facts (and therefore science has a legitimate use informing policy) and the conflict is over values.
1) Pure Science - something that probably only existed historically when gentlemen scientists were self-funding their inquiries into whatever captured their interest. Science totally disconnected w/ politics or policy and which only seeks to further our understanding of the world.
2) Issue Advocacy - the scientist (whether consciously or not) seeks to advocate for a particular societal outcome with their expertise, often engaging directly in the political process.
3) Science Arbiter - a scientist of group of scientists attempt to give definitive scientific answers to factual questions relevant to policy debates. The assumption is that a better understanding of the facts surrounding an issue will lead to a better policy decision and societal outcome. Importantly, scientists in this role don't offer unsolicited advice, don't attach value judgements to advice, and only offer fact based information.
4) Honest Broker - the scientists recognize that there are multiple competing values and different desired outcomes in a given decision making context. They provide a suite of possible policy decisions / social courses to be undertaken and endeavor to provide the most accurate predictions as to outcomes across scenarios.
The axes of the table were view of science and view of democracy, and were divided into linear model/stakeholder model for the former and a Madisonian /Schattschneider perspective for the latter. The descriptions for all four of these characteristics were cursory so I was left trying to puzzle through exactly what this table was really saying. In the end I came to the conclusion that I both need more info for all four axis traits to understand Pielke's categorization and that the categorization only makes sense for half given what info I have.
In Chapter 3 Pielke gives a definition of science as the systematic pursuit of knowledge, though as he points out this is so broad a definition that it also encapsulates military intelligence.
In chapter 4 Pielke points out that science alone is only useful in resolving contentions arising from a lack of information. Debates that are fundamentally values based can't be resolved with science. While this is very obvious, Pielke points out that partisans often attempt to covertly masquerade a values disagreement as a fact-based disagreement, and then use science to win the fact based disagreement (e.g. climate change denialism under the guise of scientific uncertainty). Pielke then wanders into a rather odd presentation of the abortion debate, as if one side were purely scientifically motivated and the other were purely values driven. He claims that scientific information can't contribute to decisions on abortion b/c it is a values issue. I have to believe this is a legacy of this being written in 2007 when that debate was even more heated than now. For many, scientific understanding of when a fetus becomes capable of feeling pain and cognition shapes their stance on abortion. In this case science can and should inform decisions, though it won't resolve the religious-values based opposition of many. It also seems worth addressing that science and scientists share common values around a a fact-based approach to problem resolution that is not shared by others. That is to say, science is itself value-based. It seems this is going to inevitably put science at conflict with alternative values. We'll see where he's going w/ this, but I guess I'd disagree that science is only useful in resolving disputes of low uncertainty w/ shared values. When people's values differ they can still find commonalities and then proceed along a rational basis for satisfying the most common desires possible.
Ch 5 digs further into the linear model which assumes sciences goes from basic->applied->development->application->societal benefit. Pielke argues that the scientific community primarily values pursuing knowledge for its own sake but came to justify this pursuit in the mid 1900's in terms of the societal benefits the publicly funded yet unregulated pursuit of knowledge can produce. He asserts that scientists viewed basic research as 'pure' and of nobler pursuit (perhaps true in the 1800s but this elides a great number of strongly public minded scientists). And he points out that there's some inherent conflict in the socio-political bargain struck by the scientific community: governments believe funding basic research is necessary to produce social benefits, whereas scientists want to pursue basic research for knowledge's sake without the pressure to produce social benefits. Pielke keeps asserting that this linear model doesn't match reality or fails to deliver results, but has yet to provide an actual critique of it at this point. He asserts that it persisted in the face of schizophrenic double talk over the role of basic research b/c both parties were happy with the in the cold war period. That sounds like a system that was working to me... A couple of good points in this chapter 1) the strong discordance between scientists who value long term accumulation of generalized knowledge and politicians in charge of funding who want measurable returns on investment in time frames short enough to satisfy election cycles, 2) the tension in a democratic system that expects political accountability for the spending of public funds with a scientific system that desires self-assessment and no political oversight, 3) the growing lack of trust in science publicly is at least partly due to the role of science in producing many of our modern social problems (e.g. antibiotic resistant bacteria, nuclear proliferation and pollution, AI threatening job security), whereas in the past science created only solutions, 4) (implicit) increasing strenuousness in demands for societal benefits from govt as the money tightens up in a post cold war USA . Pielke's critique seems based on the notion that a linear model of science necessarily produces stealth advocacy amongst scientists or those using science. But he seems to be conflating the actions of individual scientists with the societal organziation for the funding and distribution of benefits of science. While I certainly agree that the idea of science as objective and separate from cultural values or government objectives is mythical, that doesn't mean it's not an ideal worth striving for. Likewise I don't see that it follows that a linear model necessarily produces the negative outcomes he's asserting when we recognize our own subjectivity. Pielke is trying to break down the notion of separation between applied and basic research, but he doesn't address the underlying reasons for the existence of that separation. Much science of potentail future societal value is not commercially valuable in the present. Some never will be. But science and society as a whole benefit from our generally increased understanding of the functioning of nature (not just the pursuit of knowledge, which is a bad definition of science). The fact that basic science has its own values and isn't completely objective doesn't mean that it's not worth funding separately and protecting. And Pielke elides the entire field of applied science and the thousands of university or government employed scientists whose primary focus is to produce those societal benefits (though that number is rapidly diminishing given our current crisis of funding in science). Let's see what the next few chapters have to say.
Ch.6 really don't see the analogy between invasion of Iraq and science communication to be as illustrative/relevant as Pielke thinks it is.
Generally agree w/ central thesis that 'stealth science advocacy' is damaging to both politics and science, that we need to be honest about when an issue is in conflict b/c of facts (and therefore science has a legitimate use informing policy) and the conflict is over values.
October 25, 2018
The book is a strong critique of conventional thinking about science and policy. The distinction between basic and applied research is shown to be faulty as it lends itself to a linear model of the role of science in society that pretends policy-decisions flow from scientific knowledge rather than from values. Instead, science is always tainted by the worldly context, with many political and non-political stakeholders with differing demands. The linear model assumes that a factive is statement entails an ought whereas the stakeholder model recognizes an ought is always already present in the is, without accepting ought from is. This is so because a scientific statement is never beyond reasonable doubt and involves a chance of being mistaken, the decision to accept a hypothesis as true is then a function also of the importance of being mistaken. It becomes a partially ethical judgment.
Taking a policy-decision on the basis of scientific uncertainty also invites values. When there is a consensus on the values and low uncertainty, the scientist can play the role of arbiter: informing policy-makers on the scientific status in an objective, detached way. When this is not the case, the scientist cannot remain isolated and cloaked in pseudo-neutrality. Often the role of the issue advocate is then assumed, overtly or not. While this is a respectable and necessary role, the book argues for another role: the honest broker of policy alternatives. Here the expert offers different policy options that fall within the scope of the scientific knowledge and from which decision-makers, as representatives of society at large and delegated to make value-judgments, can make a choice. Whereas the issue advocate attempts to reduce the scope of choice, the honest broker expands it.
Necessary reading for anyone looking to get into science policy!
Taking a policy-decision on the basis of scientific uncertainty also invites values. When there is a consensus on the values and low uncertainty, the scientist can play the role of arbiter: informing policy-makers on the scientific status in an objective, detached way. When this is not the case, the scientist cannot remain isolated and cloaked in pseudo-neutrality. Often the role of the issue advocate is then assumed, overtly or not. While this is a respectable and necessary role, the book argues for another role: the honest broker of policy alternatives. Here the expert offers different policy options that fall within the scope of the scientific knowledge and from which decision-makers, as representatives of society at large and delegated to make value-judgments, can make a choice. Whereas the issue advocate attempts to reduce the scope of choice, the honest broker expands it.
Necessary reading for anyone looking to get into science policy!
August 22, 2016
An extraordinarily helpful framework for thinking about the scientist's possible roles and corresponding responsibilities in good policymaking. The concept of the "Honest Broker" is an invaluable contribution that will hopefully disseminate throughout the scientific and political realms; equally important is the ability to recognize when individuals are operating as "Stealth Issue Advocates." This book is a must-read not only for individuals interested in policy where the scientific facts matter, but all wishing to be informed when participating the democratic decision making process.
August 7, 2017
Thoughtful but perhaps a little too academic. I think the challenge these days is that this book assumes most people in these spaces (esp. politics) are rational actors, and unfortunately the world is so partisan that it's hard to be an honest broker. A follow on book would be good and one with more practical advice.
March 13, 2022
Good book, especially relevant during the pandemic as the question around the interaction between science and politics is ever present.
February 8, 2021
This book was advised to me many times, and after the somanyeth professor explaining why reading this text is so important, I gave in and decided to actually read it. Thank you to aaaal the teachers and professors who advised this book! I needed to read this!
As a scientist without much talent for politics, I often find myself frustrated by the political process that seems to not listen to science when it doesn't suit its objectives. Moreover, I have been worried about what role a scientist should take in all of this political 'abuse'. Now I have seen that there are different roles to choose from, as a scientist we actually have a choice! Besides that, there is some clear explanation about what kind of politics require what kind of input from scientist. Mixing that up will give you a fast ride towards frustration.
Not only have we lived in the misconception that providing the accurate science would lead to accurate action, we have believed the illusion that science and politics are strictly separated. According to Pielke, science and politics are intertwined. Because science must look attractive to policy makers to receive their funding and policy makers want science that backs up their favorable decision. This does not mean that science cannot be trusted; it means we need to have openness about what role the scientist behind the science is choosing to play. Us scientists do not have to be part of the decision-making process if we do not want to by choosing to be either a pure scientist or a science arbiters. In contrast, scientists who do want to be part of the decision-making process (which is their right as a citizen) can choose the role of issue advocate or honest broker. The problem does not lie in which role a scientist chooses all four of them have an important function in society. It is a problem when one pretends to be a pure scientist, but is trying to push an agenda through under the radar. Pielke labels this as 'stealth issue advocacy'... and I couldn't agree more.
The only reason I give 'the honest broker' 4 starts instead of 5 is because I had to read it with a dictionary. About 1 word per 3 pages was not known to me. Though fluent in it, English is a foreign language to me and therefore this dictionary issue may not be a problem for other readers.
As a scientist without much talent for politics, I often find myself frustrated by the political process that seems to not listen to science when it doesn't suit its objectives. Moreover, I have been worried about what role a scientist should take in all of this political 'abuse'. Now I have seen that there are different roles to choose from, as a scientist we actually have a choice! Besides that, there is some clear explanation about what kind of politics require what kind of input from scientist. Mixing that up will give you a fast ride towards frustration.
Not only have we lived in the misconception that providing the accurate science would lead to accurate action, we have believed the illusion that science and politics are strictly separated. According to Pielke, science and politics are intertwined. Because science must look attractive to policy makers to receive their funding and policy makers want science that backs up their favorable decision. This does not mean that science cannot be trusted; it means we need to have openness about what role the scientist behind the science is choosing to play. Us scientists do not have to be part of the decision-making process if we do not want to by choosing to be either a pure scientist or a science arbiters. In contrast, scientists who do want to be part of the decision-making process (which is their right as a citizen) can choose the role of issue advocate or honest broker. The problem does not lie in which role a scientist chooses all four of them have an important function in society. It is a problem when one pretends to be a pure scientist, but is trying to push an agenda through under the radar. Pielke labels this as 'stealth issue advocacy'... and I couldn't agree more.
The only reason I give 'the honest broker' 4 starts instead of 5 is because I had to read it with a dictionary. About 1 word per 3 pages was not known to me. Though fluent in it, English is a foreign language to me and therefore this dictionary issue may not be a problem for other readers.
June 10, 2020
This book made a good case for how the linear model of science often leads to stealth issue advocacy, and that it is better used in cases where values are largely shared and uncertainty is low. In other cases, it is better for scientists to engage through "independent, authoritative bodies" to give insights that expand policy options, acting as "Honest Brokers". I'm glad to have read this; however, it was very repetitive and short on specific expamples and practical advice. I would have preferred to read a review paper than an entire book and could have gotten the same level of understanding. I also object to the use of a tragic example when there would have been equally appropriate examples of successes to illustrate consequences of choice.
January 6, 2018
Here the author comes up with a four fold classification considering types of democracy and the mindset of scientists. By classifying them as pure scientists, science arbiters, issue advocates, and the focus of the book - the honest brokers.
This book helps in understanding these four categories with the help of vivid and real world examples through thought experiments.
Author also pitches the idea of Science for policy and policy for science(with due note on the problems with politicising science). He also stresses on the role of academics in decision making and bringing changes in policy.
This book helps in understanding these four categories with the help of vivid and real world examples through thought experiments.
Author also pitches the idea of Science for policy and policy for science(with due note on the problems with politicising science). He also stresses on the role of academics in decision making and bringing changes in policy.
December 8, 2019
A must-read for anyone working along the boundary of science and policy. A bit repetitive at times, but the book gives a great way to frame the different perspectives of scientists when engaging (or not) in politics. Very interesting.
April 4, 2020
A clearly organized framework of scientists' roles in politics, policy, and policymaking. I appreciate the chapter summaries at the end of each chapter. The information in each chapter can be complicated so summaries help to tie details together.
November 19, 2024
An interesting short treatise on the various roles that scientists can / should take in public policy debates, which in 2024 reads quite naïve. It's also very, very dry. There's an important central point around how the current model of public research funding by definition politicises science.
October 5, 2023
Well-written. Very interesting. Made me want to pursue public policy. What more can I say.
January 26, 2017
Roger Pielke Jr. presents four, idealized roles for scientists to play in policy and politics, along with scenarios for when each is appropriate. Specifically, it depends on whether there is consensus of values, the degree of uncertainty involved, and whether the scientist wishes to reduce the scope of choice. He clearly illustrates the distinction between each of the roles with a wide variety of examples, and he provides historical context for common reasons for and situations where, as he argues, roles are often inappropriately adopted. Overall, Pielke Jr. serves as an honest broker himself, expanding upon and clarifying the choices that scientists have when deciding how to engage with policy and politics.
August 10, 2008
A great discussion of the role(s) of scientists in informing policy decisions.
April 14, 2009
Good analysis of the role of science and scientists in policy, and the distinction between policy and politics where science/ scientists are concerned.
November 29, 2012
A bit elementary, but I like the point of view, that of a scientist in the public policy arena. I especially appreciate reading about uncertainty and preemptive action.
March 6, 2013
I used this book for the class I am teaching. It provides a useful entryway into getting students to think about policy and politics in relation to science.
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews