Scientists speaking 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.

Published in PLOS Climate, the study “Climate Advocacy and Activism by Scientists: A Narrative Review” was conducted by researchers from Lancaster University, the University of Amsterdam, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (EAWAG).

Scientists have become more visible in climate debates, engaging in public communication, policy advice, open letters, political demonstrations, and even civil disobedience.

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 that 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 Samuel Finnerty from 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.”