Beach Haven

Bibliography:

Sarewitz, Daniel. 1996. Frontiers of Illusion: Science, Technology, and the Politics of Progress. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Temple University Press.

Review by Michael Beach

Vannevar Bush was the head of the Office of Scientific Research and Development for presidents Roosevelt and Truman. He was charged to write a vision for the United States of post World War II science and technology. There had been debate over how much or little US government and military participation (read funding and oversight) was necessary in the pending peace time. The result was a report published under the name Science, the Endless Frontier. The report made a number of overarching suggestions. These assertions included that science brings ‘indefinite benefit', and that research is best left ‘unfettered’. Bush also argued that the scientific community holds itself accountable given it’s processes, and such accountability then gives science trusted authoritativeness. He concludes that if all this effort were sufficiently funded and left alone, that knowledge produced through science represents a form of endless frontier that is ever-advancing.

Daniel Sarewitz wrote the book referenced in this review as a sort of critique to the Bush report. He frames each of Bush’s major points as ‘myths’. He links them with Thomas Kuhn's 'paradigm' concept. From that perspective, those engaged in 'normal science’ would naturally question those seeking to overthrow that paradigm. After arguing against each Bush-myth, Sarewitz proposes in several chapters that science is a sort of marketplace and a “surrogate for social action” (Sarewitz 1996, 141). He finished the book making the case for a “new mythology” (Sarewitz 1996, 169). In his version of science, he stresses five ‘policy suggestions’ in lieu of Vannevar Bush’s policies. Sarewitz calls for expanding diversity among the ranks of scientists and an integration of what he calls “the human element” (Sarewitz 1996, 173). He goes on to suggest the need for more “honest brokers” (Sarewitz 1996) in science as described by Roger Pielke in his book by that name.

Here’s a link to my review of Pielke’s book:
http://bhaven.org/reviews/the-honest-broker

Sarewitz completes his policy suggestions by advocating a sort of scientific democracy that includes a worldwide R&D community. Bush might have found Sarewitz heretical to put social science on par with 'hard' science in terms of priority. Yet, what part of science does not involve the social? I assert that one can understand neither except in light of the other.

Bibliography

• Jasanoff, Sheila. 2008. "Speaking Honestly to Power." Amercian Scientist 96 (3): 240-243.
• Pielke, Jr., Roger A. 2007. The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 
Review by Michael Beach
 
Roger Pielke reviews some of the various roles in which scientific and technical advisers place themselves when involved in the policy process. It really doesn’t matter the policy or governing body involved (political, corporate, religious, etc.). For Pielke, there essentially four ‘idealized’ roles. The pure scientist has “no interest in… the decision-making process” (Pielke, Jr. 2007, 1). Pielke’s science arbiter is someone who “serves as a resource for the decision-maker, standing ready to answer factual questions” (Ibid., 2). An issue advocate looks to limit the scope of choice, perhaps even getting someone to believe there is really only one good choice. The books namesake, an honest broker, is generally not a single expert, but more likely a panel of them representing some larger group such as an association of experts. This broker group helps to fully vet a topic to give the best consensus on a given scientific or technology topic. For Pielke, individual experts choose how they will add to a policy discussion, and decision-makers seek out different sorts of experts in these various roles. Pielke admits there may be other descriptors, and a person may act in more than one of these categories on different topics, or even within the same policy research concern.

In several areas, Sheila Jasanoff asserts conclusions that are directly opposite those of Roger Pielke as he expresses in his book The Honest Broker. For example, Pielke makes the argument that too much dependency on the linear model may in fact have the effect of politicizing science which is the opposite of what proponents of the framework claim. In his definition, Pielke asserts politicization of science involves advocacy which he defines as seeking to constrict policy options. In fact, advocacy seeks to narrow options to essentially one alternative cloaked as the natural outcome of scientific knowledge. He says this is a false notion that scientific knowledge compels a specific outcome.

In her review of his book, Jasanoff conversely argues that Pielke depends too much on a simplistic quadrant diagram of his own making. She notes how STS scholars have argued that forms of political engagement are not fixed in advance. It continually shifts. Where Pielke argues that the best role of science is to widen the number of the scope of policy alternatives. Jasanoff points out how widening the scope of choice does not always serve public interest. “Negotiated, knowledge-based consensus that compels a particular policy may depoliticize value conflicts” (Jasanoff 2008, 242).
​
Perhaps the two authors can find common ground. Jasaoff sees a problematic tendency in scientists to naturalize values and social preferences that are embedded in science itself. Speaking about the idea of honest brokers in the form of panels in his final chapter, Pielke notes how scientists are humans and citizens. They have personal and professional values and views. It seems to me, if scientists can acknowledge their personal and professional values and how their perspective may be affected by them, the idea of honest brokers in the form of professional groups may be possible. As a typical STS argument, Jasanoff points out that the scientific process itself is value-laden. One conclusion to this typical STS position is how noting personal and professional values not only effect knowledge on policy evaluation, but effect knowledge creation as well, can ultimately help decision-makers to qualify scientific perspective as one of many considerations in creating policy. Understanding these human limits on objectivity would influence policy-makers not to discredit scientific advice, but also not to overweight it.