The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics
Abstract
Scientists have a choice concerning what role they should play in political debates and policy formation, particularly in terms of how they present their research. This book is about understanding this choice, what considerations are important to think about when deciding, and the consequences of such choices for the individual scientist and the broader scientific enterprise. Rather than prescribing what course of action each scientist ought to take, the book aims to identify a range of options for individual scientists to consider in making their own judgments about how they would like to position themselves in relation to policy and politics. Using examples from a range of scientific controversies and thought-provoking analogies from other walks of life, 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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“We posit that only this variant allows the university to function as a (mostly unbiased) clearinghouse for science and for professors to function as honest knowledge brokers (Pielke 2007).”
From Transdisciplinarity: science for and with society in light of the university’s roles and functions (2020) · cites this paper as Pielke 2007
In the citing paper
“But maintaining independence is the prerequisite for facilitators to work as honest knowledge brokers (Pielke 2007).”
From Transdisciplinarity: science for and with society in light of the university’s roles and functions (2020) · cites this paper as Pielke 2007
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Edenhofer, O., & Seyboth, K. (2013) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-375067-9.00128-5 · Cited by 3,705
Soil quality – A critical review
Bünemann, E. K., Bongiorno, G., Bai, Z., Creamer, R. E., De Deyn, G., de Goede, R., Fleskens, L., Geissen, V., Kuyper, T. W., Mäder, P., et al. (2018) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2018.01.030 · Cited by 2,960
Why We Disagree about Climate Change
Hulme, M. (2009) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511841200 · Cited by 2,621
Wicked Problems: Implications for Public Policy and Management
Head, B. W., & Alford, J. (2015) · Administration & Society · doi:10.1177/0095399713481601 · Cited by 1,514
Understanding and managing conservation conflicts
Redpath, S. M., Young, J. C., Evely, A. C., Adams, W. M., Sutherland, W. J., Whitehouse, A., Amar, A., Lambert, R. A., Linnell, J. D. C., Watt, A. D., et al. (2012) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2012.08.021 · Cited by 1,365
Metadata
- Authors
- Pielke, Jr.
- Venue
- Cambridge University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Published
- 2007-04-19
- OpenAlex
- W1527452312
- Cited by
- 2,020
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 112 · 2025: 108 · 2024: 88 · 2023: 96 · 2022: 126 · 2021: 121 · 2020: 119 · 2019: 149 · 2018: 103 · 2017: 129 · 2016: 147 · 2015: 119 · 2014: 146 · 2013: 119 · 2012: 95
- FWCI
- 66.69
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Cambridge University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Research, Science, and Academia
- Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Social Science and Policy Research
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Conservation, Ecology, Wildlife Education
- Keywords
- science and politics, science and policy, role of scientists, scientific controversy, science communication, democracy, scientific integrity, science and society, public understanding of science
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
