# 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.

## Key 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.