Climate change and biodiversity loss are among the greatest threats to both human and ecological systems. Yet there is a significant gap between the scientific consensus and policy action to change the trajectory.  Frustrated by this disconnect, some scientists have gone beyond research and joined social movements to push for change. Their actions range from pasting scientific papers to government buildings, obstructing fossil fuel infrastructure, and leaking the IPCC report.

Critics suggest that activism risks undermining scientists' credibility by politicising their roles. However,  others counter that greater involvement from scientists — who are trusted by the public — can enhance the credibility and impact of climate-justice actions. These competing ideas raises a critical dilemma for environmentally concerned scientists - should they remain neutral, or become advocates? And for those who choose activism, how do they navigate these new roles? Our research aimed to explore these questions.

How Scientists See Themselves

In our Nature Communications Earth and Environment paper Scientists' Identities Shape Engagement with Environmental Activism we examined the factors impacting engagement. Surveying 329 natural and social scientists from 41 countries we found that a significant factor was how scientists saw their identity fitting with environmental activism— particularly in relation to values such as objectivity, impartiality, and duty.

Scientists who viewed activism as being compatible with their scientist identity — believing that advocacy could coexist with objectivity and impartiality — were significantly more likely to participate in environmental action. These scientists often viewed activism as a responsibility stemming from their role as a scientist — a  finding supported in a survey of over 9000 scientists.

Analysis of open responses revealed diverse views on what it means to be a scientist. While some saw activism as a threat to scientific integrity, others viewed it as a moral extension of their work. This range of perspectives highlights the complexity of integrating activism with science, prompting further questions about how scientists form their identities and define acceptable actions. These deeper questions of identity formation were further explored in our follow-up research.

The Scientist’s Dilemma: Balancing Objectivity and Advocacy

Our follow-up research in Nature Climate Action delved into how scientists navigate the tension between their roles as objective researchers and their desire to act on climate and environmental issues. Through interviews with 27 scientists from 11 countries, several key themes emerged.

Some scientists framed activism as not only compatible with science but as an inherently objective and rational endeavour. One biologist argued that scientists who fail to act on scientific information are not being objective, “What is scientific information for? It’s to be acted upon and […] we’re following science by doing the activism that we’re doing”. This perspective redefines activism as an extension of the scientific process rather than a departure from it.

Many scientists also expressed a sense of moral duty. A retired meteorologist described activism as a moral imperative, “It’s the right thing to do,” while others saw their expertise as a responsibility to make complex information accessible and actionable for the public.

Interestingly, some scientists challenged the notion of complete objectivity. One physics professor noted, “The truly objective researcher probably doesn’t exist,” emphasising that public communication often involves some degree of advocacy. This acknowledgment of inherent bias encouraged a more transparent and reflective on how their values informed their work.

However, not all scientists were comfortable with the potential risks of combining activism with their research. Concerns about increasing societal polarisation were noted, but many felt that the urgency of the climate crisis justified visible action by scientists. As one ecologist emphasised, “It’s important that scientists are visibly freaking out.”

Beyond activism, some scientists strategically reframed their day-to-day work—research, teaching, and communication—as forms of advocacy. For example, a doctoral student in psychology described her focus on environmental issues as a deliberate activist choice, stating, “I make sure that my career is contributing to the good and not… destroying the earth.” This approach allows scientists to impact environmental issues without engaging in more confrontational forms of activism, such as protests. This strategy is particularly significant for those who may view traditional activism as risky or misaligned with their professional identity.

Our research reveals a range of strategies that scientists use to navigate the tension between objectivity and activism. Some view activism as a moral obligation, others reframe their work as advocacy, and many leverage their research and teaching to foster environmental change. Through these varied approaches, scientists are finding ways to contribute effectively to addressing the climate crisis while maintaining their professional identities.

Looking Ahead: The Growing Intersection of Science and Advocacy

As the climate and ecological crises deepen, the relevance of these questions is set to increase. More scientists are likely to confront how their roles align with public action, a trend reflected in the rise of scientific and activist organisations tackling environmental issues such as the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, Scientists for Global Responsibility, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Scientists for Extinction Rebellion, and Scientist Rebellion. This shift highlights a broader integration of scientific expertise with advocacy. Continued reflection and dialogue will be crucial as scientists balance their professional identities with public action.