Do you agree and why? Is it permissible for scientists to become advocates in the areas of their research? What steps can one take to balance advocacy with the objectivity that is considered the ideal in scientific inquiry?
I agree with the statement. As Resnik implies on the paper, I believe that researchers have a social responsibility to disseminate the results, not only in the scientific area, but also with the society. The researcher can do that by different indirect ways, like doing policy briefs, working with NGO's, or as assessor of stakeholders.
I think that it is permissible for scientists to become advocates in their area of research, but always avoiding conflict of interest and maintaining objectivity on the information.
Some of the steps that one can take to balance advocacy with objectivity can be discussing the policy implications of the research on the papers, participating in NGOs, giving media interviews, or writing an article in the news, etc. To maintain objectivity, it is essential to discriminate between the scientific evidence and personal believes and consult with experts in politics and or ethics.