Climate advocacy by scientists shows mixed effects, no clear trust boost or backlash

Scientists have become more visible in climate debates, engaging in public communication, policy advice, open letters, political demonstrations and even civil disobedience. Scientists who speak out on climate change have different effects depending on the context, according to research led by Lancaster University. A major review led by Dr. Samuel Finnerty finds no consistent evidence that such advocacy either strengthens or undermines scientific credibility, public trust or support for climate action.

The study was conducted by researchers from Lancaster University, the University of Amsterdam and the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (EAWAG) and was published in the journal PLOS Climate under the title "Scientists as activists: An ethnography of the 'critical moments' in scientists' transition to climate activism."

The review brought together evidence from international research examining why scientists engage in advocacy, how advocacy affects public perceptions and the professional consequences of public engagement.

The researchers found there is no simple answer to whether advocacy helps or harms science. Instead, its effects depend on the form of advocacy, the audience, the issue being discussed and the wider political and social context. Where effects are observed, they tend to be modest, whether in positive or negative directions.

Lead author Dr. Finnerty in the department of psychology at Lancaster University said, "Our review shows that the outcomes of scientist advocacy are often more complex than public debates suggest. There is no simple answer to whether advocacy helps or harms science, or whether it promotes climate action. The evidence indicates that its effects depend heavily on context, audience and the form of engagement being considered. We hope this review provides a clearer evidence base for understanding these debates."

The review also finds that scientists engage in advocacy for a variety of reasons, including moral concern about climate change, a sense of professional responsibility, frustration with political inaction and concerns about misinformation.

However, many scientists also report barriers, including concerns about reputation , career progression and perceptions of bias, and tensions between advocacy and traditional norms of scientific impartiality. Research indicates that sustained engagement can reshape professional identities, foster new forms of collective action, and create both personal and professional opportunities as well as challenges.

Dr. Finnerty said, "Rather than asking whether advocacy is inherently good or bad, we need to understand when, how and for whom different forms of engagement are effective. Moving beyond simple assumptions about advocacy will help scientists, institutions, policymakers and the public engage more constructively with these questions."

Publication details

Samuel Finnerty, Scientists as activists: An ethnography of the 'critical moments' in scientists' transition to climate activism, PLOS Climate (2026). DOI: 10.1371/journal.pclm.0000828

Who's behind this story?

Lisa Lock

BA art history, MA material culture. Former museum editor, paramedic, and transplant coordinator. Editing for Science X since 2021.

Full profile →

Andrew Zinin

Master's in physics with research experience. Long-time science news enthusiast. Plays key role in Science X's editorial success.

Full profile →

Citation :

Climate advocacy by scientists shows mixed effects, no clear trust boost or backlash (2026, June 17)

retrieved 17 June 2026

from https://phys.org/news/2026-06-climate-advocacy-scientists-effects-boost.html

This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no

part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.