FST JOURNAL

Summary 

• There is an urgent need for more honesty, scrutiny and a rethinking of how scientists endeavour to influence policy and publics. 
• With knowledge comes responsibility: scientists should play their part in driving society’s demand for urgent and transformative change; in catalysing a societal tipping point. 
• To do this, they must be more proactive in challenging power, by ramping up public outreach, advocacy and activism; not as an extracurricular activity but as an integral part of being a scientist.
• Being proactive ranges from low risk advocacy, such as community outreach and engaging with MPs, to higher risk action, such as peaceful but sometimes disruptive protest, challenging the status quo and demanding change.  

Albert Einstein’s words — “those who have the privilege to know have the duty to act” — affirm that those with knowledge carry a responsibility to use it for the common good.  The science community stands at a crossroads. It can continue as a provider of knowledge, or it can rise to the role of knowledge activist, applying its insights to drive meaningful change.  I believe the gravity and urgency of our situation makes the choice clear.

Why?  Because the world is on fire, literally and figuratively. Recent national initiatives – like the privately-funded National Emergency Briefing, multiple reports from the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (here and here), and the UK Government’s national security assessment of global ecosystem collapse have set out, starkly, how woefully unprepared we are for the catastrophic societal and economic impacts of the climate and ecological emergency. Some governments are abandoning net zero and reneging on longstanding international commitments; ideologies are trumping evidence; and lies and misinformation are becoming common currency. The case for evidence-informed policymaking and the battle for a fair, sustainable, liveable future for all are being lost.

Regrettably, the global science community must accept that it is part of a collective, systemic failure.  Vested interests of the oil and gas lobby, backed by billionaire-owned media, continue to wield greater influence than decades of scientific evidence and advice.  Money and power trump knowledge, yet scientists have relentlessly pursued an information deficit model, based on the assumption that policymakers just need more information to make better policy decisions.  Practices at the science-policy interface are largely unchanging and unchallenged, while lies peddled by the fossil fuel industry and climate sceptics dominate political decision-making.  There is an urgent need for more honesty, scrutiny and a rethink, from both science-policy practitioners and science leaders shaping the governance and culture of science.

With knowledge comes responsibility, and a strong case can be made for responsible science activism where actions speak louder than words and where traditional expectations of professional and political detachment in science are no longer appropriate (Wyatt et al, 2024, a must-read).  More than ever, the world needs scientists to speak up and speak out, to affirm the reality, gravity and urgency of the multiple challenges we face.  

Exasperated by the lack of political progress, and feeling genuinely scared, some scientists have turned to activism to try to accelerate action; moving from publications to public actions (The Conversation, 2023). Continued government, corporate and societal inaction, they argue, justifies direct action, peaceful protest and disruption (Frickel and Tormos-Aponte, 2023; Grossman, 2024). Their activism is driven by evidence and urgency, not personal or political bias (Anguelovski et al, 2025). They do not do this lightly. They do it because they have a professional conscience and compulsion; an obligation not just to document the natural world in ever more detail but to help protect it. They argue that scientists can only be credible, trustworthy messengers if they are coherent and consistent in what they say, how they say it, and how they act.

Many science activists support grassroots social movements pushing for urgent and transformational change. Historically, social movements have shown that peaceful protest and civil disobedience can stimulate media coverage, public scrutiny, debate and action (Chenoweth, 2021) and even the IPCC recognises that social movements underpin systemic change (IPCC, 2023).  History shows it only takes a small minority acting in solidarity to catalyse a social tipping point and galvanise change: for example,  recycling household waste, the banning of CFCs, moratoria on whaling and fracking, and the UK’s Climate Change Act have all been driven in large part by grassroots activism.  As a still largely trusted and privileged community (Wong, 2024), scientists can help galvanise the “silent majority” concerned about climate change (Andre et al, 2024; The Guardian, 2026).

Scientists – from across disciplines and career stages – are finding multiple ways to be heard, through public outreach, advocacy and activism. This includes supporting national and local action-based communities, redirecting research and teaching, giving media interviews, writing op-eds and letters, being vocal on social media, directly engaging and lobbying MPs, taking to the streets in peaceful protest, and civil disobedience (Perrin et al, 2025).

Surveys show that many scientists would like to be more proactive but do not feel empowered to do so, for fear of losing professional credibility or even their jobs (Dablander et al, 2024).  Some senior academics and commentators accuse science activists of politicising science and compromising its neutrality and integrity (e.g. Grawitch, 2025), while many universities blithely accept funding from the fossil fuel industry (Solid Sustainability Research 2023).  This is disingenuous and inconsistent.  Similarly, they argue that protesting about science-for-policy issues, like climate change, is too political; yet they make public statements on policy-for-science issues, like the impact of Brexit or cuts in science funding, which are also political. These inconsistencies risk being self-serving, whilst undermining and marginalising science activists.  

Scientists are trained to remain neutral and objective, and they generally receive little training to speak to politicians and publics. This has contributed to a “pervasive complacency”, a palpable apathy as composed observers of a world in crisis (Perrin, 2025).  Speaking up and speaking out, in whatever capacity, can help raise political and public awareness of what is going on, reinforce the credibility of scientific messages, counter misinformation and strengthen public trust. In times of emergency, these should not be purely extracurricular but an integral responsibility of a scientist, in any discipline.  Scientific institutions have a vital role to play in supporting faculty, alumni and students who choose to become activists (Gardner et al, 2021).

Twenty years ago, science diplomacy was regarded by many scientists as the politicisation of science and a risk to research excellence. Yet now it is firmly established and features prolifically in scientific discourse. It is time for responsible science activism to have a similar awakening, and be openly recognised as a legitimate part of the science community’s toolkit for bringing truth to power; supplementing more traditional ways of influencing policy, and stimulating much-needed professional and institutional reform.

To conclude, there is a strong case for scientists to move beyond business-as-usual and proactively challenge policies that have us inexorably on a trajectory of planetary, economic and societal collapse. Scientists must be more proactive in public outreach, advocacy and activism, including peaceful and sometimes disruptive protest. Maintaining a position of neutrality ultimately acquiesces to those defending the status quo, which – some commentators have posited – could be construed as tantamount to complicity with those who deny  the climate emergency (Porritt, 2024). Something we should all give careful thought to.

On Wednesday 18th March, The Foundation held a discussion event at The Royal Society on science activism entitled ‘From publication to public action: the case for responsible science activism’. You can watch this again here.