There was a good debate on this at the recent meeting of the German social psychologists. Maybe @mariogollwitzer.bsky.social could summarize it in some form at some point.

And, finally, the question was whether it is possible to always make it clear in communication with the media, politicians, decision-makers, etc. which hat one is currently wearing (neutral scientist, citizen, activist, etc.). There was a consensus to try to do this in the best possible way. (5/5)

At that point, the question arose as to how much these scientific standards are actually "set in stone". At this point, it was about basic scientific values... (4/5)

Others pointed to the danger that activism in science could lead to a weakening and undermining of scientific standards (truth-seeking, neutrality). However, these standards are crucial, so, if there is a conflict between activism and keeping-up standards, there's no place for activism (3/5)

During the discussion, different views were brought to the table at different levels: Some argued that urgent issues (climate crisis, etc.) cannot be tackled in a meaningful way and important problems cannot be solved in a meaningful way if scientists are not also activists. (2/5)

Absolutely! First--I believe that the role of science/scientists in social discourses is currently being re-negotiated. It's important for scientists to get their heads around this and form their own opinion. The panel discussion in Graz aimed at initiating this opinion-forming process. (1/5)