Judge scientists’ climate advocacy on its wider impacts, not only its risks
Published here:
Debates on climate advocacy by scientists centre on potential risks, particularly whether speaking out undermines scientists’ credibility and public trust. But, as Samuel Finnerty and Fabian Dablander argue, focusing on what scientists might lose by speaking out risks overlooking how their engagement could contribute to societal change. Calling for research on a broader range of advocacy outcomes they argue that uncertainty about these consequences should not prevent scientists from engaging, or academic institutions from supporting them.
In November 2025, scientists convened the National Emergency Briefing, calling for a wartime-scale response to the climate and nature crisis in the UK. Others have joined protests against new fossil fuel developments, including the Rosebank oil field in the North Sea. Their aims and methods differ, as do their potential effects. What do these activities achieve, what risks do they carry, and how should scientists decide whether to participate?
Figure 1: Left: National Emergency Briefing, 27 November 2025. Photo Credit: National Emergency Briefing. Right: Scientists on Survival protest against the Rosebank oil field outside the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. Photo Credit Kirk Pritchard.
Scientists generally rank among the most trusted professions , with moderate to high levels of public trust across the world , albeit with differences between disciplines and recent declines in trust . Majorities of people also support a stronger role for scientists in public policy and societal decision-making. Yet there is considerable debate over what form scientists’ public engagement should take, particularly concerning advocacy, which we define here as the “act of persuading or arguing in support of a specific cause, policy, idea, or set of values”.[1][2][3][4][5]
Some argue that scientists should avoid advocacy because it risks undermining their credibility or perceived independence. Others challenge the myth of neutrality , arguing that science and advocacy are compatible, provided scientists are honest about their values. Groups such as Scientists for Future , Scientist Rebellion , and Scientists on Survival illustrate the growing visibility of scientists in climate advocacy, many of whom see public engagement as a responsibility and hope that their trusted position may catalyse wider action .[6][7][8][9][10][11]
Consequences of climate advocacy
Our recent review of the literature suggests that the effects of advocacy are not clear cut. In some circumstances, advocacy can increase trust in scientists. In others, it can reduce their perceived credibility. These varied effects depend on the audience, the issue being discussed, the form of engagement, the target of advocacy, the framing in the media, and the wider social and political context.[5]
For example, climate scientists advocating strict CO₂ limits on coal-fired power plants experienced no credibility effect, whereas advocating for nuclear power reduced it. Advocacy for less controversial policies , such as tax rebates for energy-efficient vehicles and solar panels, can increase credibility. Regarding more disruptive forms of advocacy, some research finds that civil disobedience does not reduce perceived credibility, while other research finds negative effects.[12][13][14][15]
Looking beyond credibility
While some studies consider other outcomes such as policy support, many focus on how scientists and science are perceived. Important though credibility and trust are, these are arguably only indirectly linked to the societal changes that scientists aim to bring about.
We should therefore broaden the outcomes we consider when studying scientists’ advocacy. Did the National Emergency Briefing shift media coverage, attract policymakers’ attention, or increase people’s motivation to act ? Did scientists protesting against Rosebank influence policy debates or encourage others to act? Would either approach work similarly in another country?[16]
Research on environmental protest and social movements highlights the viability of studying outcomes such as policy salience , climate concern , media attention , support for environmental groups, and donations . Yet estimating the effects of scientists’ advocacy is challenging. Experimental studies often measure immediate reactions to advocacy, whereas its influence on public debate or policymaking may unfold over months or years. Furthermore, scientists often engage as part of wider campaigns, making it difficult to isolate their contribution. Longitudinal research , comparative case studies, ethnographic fieldwork , and interview-based approaches can reveal the nuanced ways by which scientist advocacy influences societal and political processes.[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]
Acting under uncertainty
While better evidence about the consequences of scientists’ advocacy would undoubtedly be valuable, we argue that scientists do not need to wait for this evidence before engaging. Scientists routinely make judgments under uncertainty, both in their research and in their personal and professional lives. Public engagement is no different. There is no one-size-fits-all course of action, and scientists may reasonably differ in how they weigh the potential benefits and risks of advocacy. There are many ways in which they can get involved in climate advocacy, from engaging in research with societal actors that has direct implications for climate action, to supporting or being actively involved in climate action groups. What is judged appropriate will depend on their expertise, values, personal circumstances, and the political context. A scientist might reasonably decide that a slight reduction in perceived credibility among some parts of the public is a trade worth making for a chance at greater policy influence or public mobilisation.[25]
We should also not forget that not engaging is also a choice. Scientists who refrain from public debate may avoid some reputational and professional risks, but also forgo opportunities to contribute their knowledge, expertise, and public standing to efforts to address climate change.
Importantly, scientists do not have to make these decisions in isolation. Engaging with other scientists who are already active, as well as with civil society organisations, activists, and affected communities can help them judge where their expertise is useful and how best to contribute. Learning from experienced organisers can also help avoid less effective approaches and identify opportunities for collective action. What worked, what did not, and what unintended consequences might have arisen? As circumstances change, scientists can reconsider their approaches and adapt accordingly. Beyond considerations of effectiveness, scientists may also choose to speak out of moral conviction, in solidarity with those affected by climate change, or because remaining silent in the face of escalating crises feels unacceptable. Engagement is an ongoing process in which experience, collective reflection , and research can inform future action.[26]
Universities should support engaged scientists
Universities and funders increasingly expect scientists to contribute to societal change, often defining such activities as research impact . Yet efforts to bring about such change can involve challenging powerful interests. Universities should recognise that societal engagement can be politically contentious, and that this alone is no reason to discourage it. They should support and protect scientists who engage beyond academia, rather than leaving them to bear the risks alone. Such support could include guidance on public engagement, protection against harassment, and recognition of different forms of societal engagement in academic career assessments. This is particularly important for early-career researchers, who may face greater professional risks and have fewer resources to draw upon.[27]
A working group at the University of Lausanne concluded that public engagement, advocacy, and activism are compatible with research and should be supported by academic institutions. A recent report by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences notes that it is “absolutely worthwhile for academics to engage in public debate”, while emphasising that they should clarify in what capacity they speak, which values inform their statements, and where the limits of their knowledge lie.[28][29]
We should continue improving our understanding of which forms of engagement work, for whom, under what conditions, and towards what ends. But scientists need not wait for certainty before getting involved. With intersecting and escalating global crises, there is no shortage of tasks for the engaged scholar. Universities should fully support those willing to take them on.
📑 This post draws on the authors’ paper, Climate advocacy and activism by scientists: A narrative review , co-authored with Maien Sachisthal, Viktoria Cologna, Lydia Messling, and Christel van Eck, published in PLOS[30]
This article gives the views of the author, not the position of LSE Impact or the London School of Economics. You are agreeing with our comment policy when you leave a comment.[31]