I agree that the language of science and medicine should be communicated with the goal of educating all people. From the perspective of a clinician, I believe that a patient has a right to understand the basics of their disease process and it should be easy for them to learn about their affliction. If we make the science related to their disease accessible then they will make better “informed consent” decisions. As for the idea of scientists becoming advocates in their area of research, I believe that this too is a good thing. A scientist knows what is needed for advancements to be successful in their own field of study. Without advocating there is no way that the correct resources will be given to the area that it is needed. In addition, if scientists do not advocate in their own area then the science can be misconstrued and people will have an incorrect impression of the science. As an example I point to the anti-vaccine movement, which took a flawed study and turned it into doctrine. If scientists did not advocate that vaccines are safe and effective we may have even more anti-vaxxers. In terms of balance, one way is that the advocates should truly be experts. That way they are advocating from a position of knowledge. Another way is to allow for equal discourse and communication between experts (i.e., Attempt to critique or review the advocate’s position).