Of Issue Advocates and Honest Brokers: Participation of U.S. and German scientists in COVID-19 policy disputes

TL;DR

This study explores how U.S. and German scientists engaged in policy debates during the pandemic, identifying different roles and their views on science's influence in politics.

Contribution

The paper introduces a classification of scientists into four distinct role types based on their self-perception in policy disputes.

Findings

U.S.-based Issue Advocates strongly believe science should guide policy-making.

Most pandemic researchers avoided supporting political causes through selective communication.

Scientists aimed to clarify research relevance without distorting policy debates.

Abstract

The study examines the intersection of science and politics by analyzing the involvement of N = 205 U.S. and N = 174 German scientists in policy disputes during the COVID-19 pandemic. I investigate how scientists integrate themselves into policy disputes. Through a survey, I identify four groups of scientists with specific self-images regarding their roles in policy disputes: Moderate Mainstreamers, Issue Advisors, Issue Advocates, and Honest Brokers. Furthermore, the findings reveal differences in how these groups of scientists perceive the importance of science in policy-making: Particularly U.S.-based Issue Advocates wish for science to direct policy-making. In addition, I find that pandemic researchers overwhelmingly do not support political causes by selectively communicating political advice. I present empirically evidence that pandemic researchers sought to clarify the relevance of research during the pandemic, but did not attempt to distort policy disputes dishonestly.

Figures