Some scientists argue that we should not put the nose outside our labs and speak out in public about policy and values, because these are non-scientific; therefore one cannot be a respectable scientist and advocate at the same time. Other believe that science is not free of values and is our responsibility as professionals to advocate for good policy-making based on informed knowledge and explicit objectivity.
For example here D. Barry and M. Oelschlaeger state that “Advocacy for the preservation of biodiversty is part of the scientific practice of conservation biology”, replying to a previous article of P. F. Brussard saying that “a measurable distance should be maintained between the scientific investigation of biodiversity and activism on its behalf”.
My sample of examples ( forgive me the pun) is limited to this discipline, and is probably inappropriate, since the objective of conservation biology is the preservation of biodiversity and therefore it is inevitably value-driven. However, is my personal opinion that in general, as scientist, exactly because we have trained ourselves to being objective, we should have a say in the decision-making processes for which we have an expertise, without fear of scrutiny on scientific professionalism. There is plenty of evidence that the advice of scientists often can prevent the negative consequences of leaving decisions to policy-makers that most of the time would act based on their interests or on assumptions and best guess. For example I wouldn’t want them to decide about conservation policy based on their opinion and that of the most vociferous stakeholders.

Advocacy or not…Where do you stand?