{"title":"问题倡导者和诚实经纪人:美国和德国科学家参与COVID-19政策争议。","authors":"Nils Bienzeisler","doi":"10.1177/09636625251371565","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The study examines the intersection of science and politics by analyzing the involvement of <i>N</i> = 205 U.S. and <i>N</i> = 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: <i>Moderate Mainstreamers, Issue Advisors, Issue Advocates, and Honest Brokers</i>. Furthermore, the findings reveal differences in how these groups of scientists perceive the importance of science in policy-making: Particularly U.S.-based <i>Issue Advocates</i> 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":" ","pages":"9636625251371565"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Of Issue Advocates and Honest Brokers: Participation of U.S. and German scientists in COVID-19 policy disputes.\",\"authors\":\"Nils Bienzeisler\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/09636625251371565\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The study examines the intersection of science and politics by analyzing the involvement of <i>N</i> = 205 U.S. and <i>N</i> = 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: <i>Moderate Mainstreamers, Issue Advisors, Issue Advocates, and Honest Brokers</i>. Furthermore, the findings reveal differences in how these groups of scientists perceive the importance of science in policy-making: Particularly U.S.-based <i>Issue Advocates</i> 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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48094,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Public Understanding of Science\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"9636625251371565\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Public Understanding of Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625251371565\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Understanding of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625251371565","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
Of Issue Advocates and Honest Brokers: Participation of U.S. and German scientists in COVID-19 policy disputes.
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.
期刊介绍:
Public Understanding of Science is a fully peer reviewed international journal covering all aspects of the inter-relationships between science (including technology and medicine) and the public. Public Understanding of Science is the only journal to cover all aspects of the inter-relationships between science (including technology and medicine) and the public. Topics Covered Include... ·surveys of public understanding and attitudes towards science and technology ·perceptions of science ·popular representations of science ·scientific and para-scientific belief systems ·science in schools