Not infrequently, scientific policy advice is criticized for being based on one-sided studies and biased analyses that are driven by economic interests and political missions. The prima-facie conclusion is that influences originating in the social arena and being imposed on science spoil the epistemic or knowl-edge-seeking character of science. Science of this kind does not look like a source of good advice. By contrast, I argue that freeing science from social or economic value commitments cannot always be implemented and is not always helpful. The point is not to expel value-judgments but rather to identify them and to keep them separate from facts. The risk of bias can be avoided by drawing up alternative scenarios which invoke a broad range of different socio-economic preferences. On the whole, giving scientific policy advice is inextricably interwoven with socio-economic commitments. Scientific policy advice should be explicit about the value judgments made and employ the fact-value distinction as a critical tool. Moreover, it should not subscribe to the creed that there is no alternative. Scientists should rather take the courage to conceive other courses of action and to broaden the range for social choice.