The topic of advocacy by scientists has been debated for decades, yet there islittle agreement about whether scientists can or should be advocates. The fearof crossing a line into advocacy continues to hold many scientists back fromcontributing to public discourse, impoverishing public debate about importantissues. We believe that progress in this debate is limited by a misconceptionabout the relationship between scienti?c integrity and objectivity. We beginby unpacking this relationship and debunking three common misconceptionsabout advocacy by scientists: namely, that advocacy is harmful to scienti?ccredibility, beyond the scope of science, and incompatible with science, whichis value-free. We propose new ways of thinking about responsible advocacy byconservation scientists, drawing on practices from the health sciences, whereresearchers and professional bodies are empowered to act as health advocates.In so doing, we hope to open further space for conservation scientists to ac-tively and legitimately engage in public debate about conservation issues.
↧