How can humanities studies of science inform science policy? Are scientists the only academics needed to inform science policy?

During the closing plenary, I made a closing remark when given the opportunity.  I began by introducing myself, and my affiliation with the University of Toronto's Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology (IHPST).  Some will remember me saying “it has often be remarked that, in order to see where we are going, we need to know where we’ve been.”  I then suggested that many of the conceptual difficulties involved in the issues addressed at the CSPC were very similar to issues that we deal with in the humanities dscipline known as History and Philosophy of Science (HPS): issues about the nature of evidence; making decisions under uncertainty; conceptualizing the relationship between science and technology; understanding how science should be regulated; understanding how to communicate science to the public in a fair yet digestible way; etc.  I then noted the many calls during the conference to encourage the development of “knowledge brokers” capable of inter-translating between the languages and interests of business, politics, and science.  I encouraged people to think about consulting historians and philosophers of science as a kind of knowledge broker when developing science policy, for we have a unique and insightful perspective and skill-set for thinking and speaking about science in non-scientific terms.  Each in our own way, those of us studying HPS make it our business to understand the nature of science, and to take the claims of scientists with the right amount and type of salt and seasoning.  I was sure to state that we don’t have all the answers, but that we’ve been dealing with many of these questions for hundreds of years in academia, and have made advances in understanding science in the modern era.  Thus, I said, HPS was an untapped resource both when making science policy, and in implementing many stages of it (both in the policy modelling process, and in the policy model itself, one could say).  I closed by remarking that the IHPST is a world-class centre for HPS right here in Toronto, and that Toronto locals should not be afraid to ask people at the IHPST for input into science policy.

As a follow-up, I am curious how others felt about this comment.  While it was noted during the closing plenary that some significant portion of participants were academics, most of those I met were practicing scientists, with almost no participants from the humanities studies of science.  This is perhaps unfortunate because many scientists have a difficult time separating their own theoretical commitments, desires for funding, and internal conception of science from the external and theory-independent concerns we often have as science policy-makers.  For example, some will remember the tension that arose during some comments made at the "Innovation: Market to Bench" session by a UofT Chemist.  I think that a lot of the misunderstanding in that session can be attributed to the ironic fact that scientists, who are surely the best equipped to speak about the nature and activities of their own particular scientific project, are nevertheless often unequipped to speak about the nature of the scientific enterprise and its place in society more generally.  Historians and Philosophers of Science, by contrast, are very well equipped to speak about the nature of science and its place in society.  The calls that many had made for more academic participation, I think, were more directed at calls for HPS-type academics.  As a result, I think they have a very important role to play in developing and implementing science policy, but I'm curious:  What are other people's honest opinions about this?