Our Role as a Systems Thinking Brokers
Towards Meaningful Systems that Help Humanity Thrive
Recently, while discussing climate change and how systems thinking might help humanity thrive, a colleague recommended that I read The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics (Pielke, 2007). It was a timely recommendation. As I continue developing as a writer about science and society, I am learning that sharing sound scientific information is only part of the responsibility. I also need to be clear about the role I am playing: answering scientific questions, advocating for a particular course of action, or helping people understand and evaluate a broader range of choices. If I hope to make a meaningful difference through Meaningful Systems and my writing, that distinction deserves deliberate attention. More broadly, what role should systems thinkers play in society overall?
Pielke describes four roles scientists can play in relation to policy and political decisions. These include:
Pure Scientist – Focuses on generating scientific knowledge without directly engaging in a particular policy decision. The research may have practical applications, but the scientist leaves others to connect the findings to policy choices.
Science Arbiter – Answers scientific questions posed by decision makers, clarifying what the evidence supports and where uncertainty remains, without recommending a particular policy.
Issue Advocate – Uses scientific knowledge to support a preferred course of action, seeking to narrow the range of choices toward a particular outcome.
Honest Broker of Policy Alternatives – Uses scientific knowledge to clarify or expand the available choices and explain their likely consequences, helping decision makers evaluate alternatives in light of their goals and values.
These roles describe different ways of participating in decision-making. A person or group may serve different roles in different situations.
Pielke suggests that the Honest Broker role is often best served by a group of experts bringing different perspectives, experiences, and knowledge to the discussion (Pielke, 2007, p. 3). This resonates with my experience in systems engineering: any one person’s expertise and perspective can leave important options or consequences unexplored. It also connects with my earlier writing about an Inclusive Innovation Culture, where people have opportunities to contribute and the team thoughtfully considers their perspectives (Fried, 2025). Bringing those perspectives together can help reveal assumptions, identify overlooked alternatives, and clarify tradeoffs so decision makers can make better-informed choices.
In my post on climate change last year, I think what I was trying to do was serve as a Science Arbiter and answer a scientific question: “Is climate change real, and is it caused by human activity?” (Fried, 2025). However, I also asked, “Why should we care?” and argued that we should do something about it, which brought me into Issue Advocacy. Honestly, I wasn’t ready for some of the backlash the post generated. In hindsight, I should have expected that a topic like climate change would generate disagreement, both about the science and about what we should do. In any case, I still stand by the conclusion that human activity is driving climate change, and I believe we should do something about it. So, there it is. On this topic, I find myself compelled to be an issue advocate. At the same time, I can still help explore different options for how we respond.
However, if we zoom out to 50,000 feet, there are other things that world leaders care about these days. One of these is artificial intelligence, or what the Trump administration is now calling Super Intelligence, or SI. If the United States wants to maintain its position as a world technological leader, then AI is an important area because it can help a variety of industries innovate faster and develop new technologies. There may be a belief that leading the world in AI development is key to maintaining technological leadership and economic prosperity. At the same time, the push to build this capability quickly can come into conflict with goals of mitigating climate change. Building data centers that require many gigawatts of electrical power raises a practical question: how do we supply that energy quickly while also working to reduce emissions?
This brings us to a values conflict. Pielke discusses situations like this using the term “Abortion Politics,” where disagreements about values cannot be resolved simply by gathering more scientific information (Pielke, 2007). In these situations, additional scientific data can still help us understand the consequences of our choices, but it cannot tell us which values should take priority. It can also become part of the conflict when people use it to advocate for one side or the other.
Two things now come to mind:
The mission that drives an organization or leader forward becomes especially important in situations like this because it helps guide how competing goals are weighed.
These contradictions can also be fuel for innovative ideas, especially when we ask whether there are ways to achieve more than one goal at the same time.
In past writing, I have suggested that the most meaningful problem of all is helping humanity thrive. So, one could turn this into a mission statement: “To promote human thriving and prosperity globally for all people and to make the most of our valuable resources.” This gives us a direction, even though we will still have disagreements about what thriving means and how best to support it.
On the second point, conflicts like mitigating climate change and pursuing AI/SI leadership can be broken down into smaller problems to explore innovative solutions. For example, how could we power a data center that requires a gigawatt of electricity with renewable resources without using fresh water for cooling? Well, from there we could go several ways. We could explore land-based systems that combine renewable energy, storage, and cooling methods that use little or no water. We could also consider more unconventional ideas, such as ocean-based data centers cooled by seawater and powered by offshore renewable energy. Or, we could explore compute nodes in space that use solar power and radiators to release heat into space. Perhaps even lunar or Martian orbit could be considered, although those options would introduce substantial challenges of their own. These are starting points for discussion, and each would need to be evaluated for feasibility, cost, reliability, and environmental impact. I’m sure if we got a smart group of people together, we could come up with a variety of ideas to help solve this challenge over the long term.
At the end of the day, I think we can be of great service as systems thinkers by attempting to play the role of Honest Broker. This connects closely with what many of us do in our daily work. We continually evaluate options and make decisions, bringing together different perspectives and trying to expand the option space in an Inclusive Innovation Culture. We can bring that same approach to our teams, communities, and conversations about problems and contradictions in the world by exploring different options and their consequences. This can be a challenge because sometimes the draw to be an issue advocate will be strong. We need to watch for what Pielke calls Stealth Issue Advocacy, especially when our own preferences influence which options we present or leave out. When we are advocating for something, we should be clear about it. Maybe we all need to play each of these four roles at different times, depending on the situation. The important thing is to recognize which role we are playing and help others understand it too.
References
Pielke RA Jr. The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. Cambridge University Press; 2007.
Fried A. Inclusive innovation culture: a vision we can share. Meaningful Systems. Published September 23, 2025. https://www.meaningfulsystems.com/blog/9
Fried A. Is climate change real—and why should we care? Meaningful Systems. Published September 6, 2025. Updated September 8, 2025. https://www.meaningfulsystems.com/blog/8
