Yes, I agree that it is permissible for scientists to become advocates in the areas of their research. In fact, with the rapid development of social media, this approach has become more of an imperative than an allowance. Before the advent of social media, biomedical scientists enjoyed a default level of respect as the standard for evidenced-based belief and because of a lack of alternatives, citizens were generally required to seek out and defer to their opinions. So the flow of scientific inquiry to the public was robust, if not always responsive to the diverse needs of the public. However, social media has presented an enormous layer of complexity in this process and misinformation is now a constant threat to evidence-based facts across all domains, including science. It is therefore critical that scientists work to make their results known in a transparent and easily accessible fashion. There is no single entity protecting this flow of knowledge otherwise, and failure to do so will lead to ongoing pervasive and worsening manipulation of facts to the detriment of societal advancement. Objectivity, though, is certainly at risk, in the face of this needed advocacy work. Critical in preservation of objectivity, is taking steps to develop communication systems which decrease the value of validating pre-conceived hypotheses, increase the value of rigorous study design (more so than the particular results), as well as increase the value of ongoing self-critique allowing for retrospective identification of errors in prior research. Without this kind of tireless work to move closer to truth, the line between advocacy and objectivity will blur. Unfortunately this also represents a double-edged sword in that rigorous truth-telling does not always make for the most compelling form of advocacy.