Passage 1: Some ecologists worry that, to the public, environmental scientists are becoming almost indistinguishable from environmental activists. 'If we promote our opinions as though they are the truth, people won't listen to the science as carefully because they'll think we have an agenda,' says Ingrid Burke, a college professor in Colorado. She and others fret that ecologists will handicap their ability to do empirical research if they go beyond current science by making value judgments-for example, by saying that nonnative plant species or global warming are categorically bad. Such values 'can really affect the way you design a study,' says John Wiens, another professor, who warns against 'creeping advocacy syndrome.' Passage 2: I believe not only that, like any other citizens, environmental scientists can be advocates, but that they ethically must be advocates, at least to the extent of informing the general public about their work and conclusions. The credibility of ecologists has been enhanced as many of them have tried to diagnose environmental ills and suggest cures. After all, biomedical scientists can gain prestige by diagnosing public health problems and recommending solutions-and, interestingly, they aren't accused of advocacy. But scientists should be careful to inform their audiences when they are representing a consensus of the knowledgeable scientific community and when they are expressing their own opinions about actions that should be taken.