At the time writing in 2023, from my then position as a postdoctoral research scientist based in a university, I introduced the chapter and my motivations for writing it as follows:



“UK universities and research institutes have been centres of my own education and work for half my lifetime. Since 2019, I’ve tried to balance a scientific research career with communicating and acting on the warnings of climate and environmental scientists. In that time I have encountered significant resistance to the idea that scientists and their institutions can – and should – use our privileged positions to contribute to rapid systemic change. I often hear that something else is more important, it’s too difficult, or it’s somehow not our place to try. By distilling some of what I’ve learned as part of the scientist/activist community, I hope to counter some of those narratives and motivate others to embrace pushing for environmental and social justice as part of the role of 21st century scientists."



Matching Rhetoric with Action

Centres of scientific research – such as universities and research institutes – exist to generate and disseminate knowledge often with the stated aim of improving lives and societies. These institutions often pride themselves on being host to, and developers of, thousands of minds trained to understand and communicate complex problems and innovate to solve them. But is this what the scientific institutions of today are really prioritising or achieving? And are they responding effectively to the escalating threats of climate, ecological and societal breakdown?

Over recent years many institutions have made public declarations of a state of Climate Emergency and announced ambitions to be part of solutions. But how much evidence is there of these same institutions realigning their practices and priorities proportionate with emergency action? Working in a place like this you may well have seen stickers reminding you to turn equipment off, a reusable cup scheme, awards for sustainable practice on the walls. But has your daily reality noticeably changed? Is what you research and how you do so largely similar to how it was before environmental sustainability was part of the discourse? Have you and your colleagues received any training to help you understand the scale of the biospheric emergency we are part of, and what we can do about it? Are conversations about how our academic systems can/should/must respond in a rapidly changing world part of your experience at all?

How can the transformative potential of science and scientists be unlocked? Institutions’ current modes of operation tend to stifle the changes needed to do so, but it is also within their power to facilitate and nurture cultural shifts. This needs to go far beyond reminders to turn off equipment and the elimination of single-use coffee cups; true sustainability in research requires seeing the big picture and embracing commensurate systemic change in how we work and what we value. This will mean realignment of the priority areas of research and teaching, a more holistic approach to mitigating the harms caused by our activities (explored in other sections of the book) and also looking to expand our conception of the institute’s role – acting as a hub for collaboration, a resource for wider communities and a fertile ground for empowering advocates and change-makers.

Scientists’ Privilege, Power and Responsibility to Accelerate Systemic Change

At its core the job of a scientist or academic is to pursue knowledge that enables us to understand specific elements of the world we are part of. Inevitably this involves evaluating and integrating information from a range of sources and disciplines, distilling what we learn into messages and principles that can be usefully shared. As such we have much of the expertise needed to comprehend and communicate the threats that all life and societies now face. When scientists publicly sound the alarm, or otherwise act to address the biospheric crises, we can be powerful messengers and advocates because of the position of trust and/or authority that is often afforded to us. We can find that our words and actions have a wider reach and a greater resonance as scientists than they would do otherwise. We might find we have greater access to platforms of communication, and that our taking action lends legitimacy to environmental movements that can suffer from unhelpful stereotyping about who it is that cares and participates.

Scientists have been warning for decades that human actions are driving irreversible and escalating climate and biodiversity threats. Could, and should, the wider scientific community be mobilising as a result, showing solidarity with the scientists who have raised alarm, and acting on the basis of the findings of our colleagues around the world? Can we expect these warnings to be listened to if we do not? Do we have greater responsibility to do so, given our privileged position to be able to understand these complex crises and our power to contribute to systemic change? What does it mean for our own role, the impact of our work and the existence of the structures that allow us to do scientific research if we do not see the kind of transformative action that is needed to protect societies as we know them from collapse? After all, there’s “no research on a dead planet”.

Scientific Institutions as Hubs for Environmental Learning and Communication

To respond proportionately to the climate & ecological emergency, institutions must do much more than replace lightbulbs and nudge their employees to make small behavioural adjustments. By taking a more systemic view, we can see that there are many more-impactful actions open to scientific institutions (summarised in Figure 1). Institutions and their funders need to turn their attention towards what research areas they prioritise and whether those make sense in the context of the biospheric emergency. In early 2020, scientists across many disciplines were rapidly re-mobilised in response to the Covid-19 pandemic.* Can we build on that experience to support the realignment of scientific research focus, centring the pursuit of the knowledge needed for societies to mitigate and adapt to climate and ecological breakdown? Key to achieving this will be institutional support for researchers to learn about the threats we face and – informed by that knowledge – apply our skills in new areas. Institutions, many of which are publicly funded, could also be playing a much more public role in supporting societal responses. This includes opening their doors to, supporting, learning from, collaborating, communicating, and sharing resources with local communities, under-represented groups and grassroots movements. Importantly, institutes stand to hugely increase their societal impact by cultivating conditions where their members are encouraged and empowered to be visible and effective advocates for environmental education and action.

Figure 1: Actions scientific research institutes can take to enable transformative change in the age of climate and ecological breakdown.





Collective Action by Scientists Holds Unrealised Potential to Accelerate Systemic Change

As individuals subject to the specific pressures of academic research careers, pushing the structures we operate within to improve can often feel frustrating and futile. Whilst there is much we can do as individuals to challenge harmful practices, signpost better ones and lead by example with our own choices (see Figure 2), we are more effective when we organise! Joining or forming climate action groups and unions can enable us to amplify calls for systemic change whilst reducing the work required and/or risk inherent in doing so. Collective action also creates communities that are ripe for learning, connection, and support. As scientists we can play valuable roles in the wider environmental movement, providing and receiving evidence and education, acting as trusted messengers and contributing to building fairer, more resilient alternative systems. As threats to a liveable future mount rapidly, what are we waiting for?

Figure 2: Actions research scientists can take to be part of transformative change in the age of climate and ecological breakdown.”

*I was one of these scientists…within weeks of the pandemic’s spread in the UK my biologist colleagues and I found ourselves studying the SARS-CoV2 virus, designing and running testing pipelines, communicating with the public, health providers and politicians and more. This was supported – and often celebrated – by our employers, funders and government.

Reflections on an evening at the Royal Society

“Responsible science activism” was the topic of discussion at a Foundation for Science and Technology event at the Royal Society in London this week. Three scientist activists - Dr Charlie Gardner, Prof Jeff Waage and myself - were invited to share the motivations behind our actions, setting out our perspectives on how the scientific community can respond effectively to the escalating Emergency and why it is vital that we do. The challenges, comments and questions that followed ranged from constructive, thoughtful, insightful to troubling and harmful. Constraints of the format meant that we couldn’t examine more than a few there and then....so I’d like to take the opportunity to share some reflections here now. 

The harmful narratives

Within the walls of this 365 year old institution, with all its grandeur and prestige, it was no surprise to be met with some hostility having challenged the ‘established’ way of being a scientist through our activism. Whilst we acknowledged the value of the ‘traditional’ routes for scientists to engage with politicians and the wider public, we know that on their own they’ve been insufficient to drive the kind of change necessary to prevent the existential danger every person and every species now faces. So the question is what do we do now? How does the scientific community’s approach need to evolve and expand to inform and energise a society-wide Emergency response at a time this is so desperately needed?

I remember how deeply uncomfortable it felt years ago grappling not just with how serious a predicament humanity is in, but also with how profoundly that changed how I felt about my own achievements, priorities and ambitions especially in relation to a scientific career that formed such a strong part of my identity. So I can empathise with a broad spectrum of defensive reactions. But however charitable I try to be, the tone of some of what was levelled against scientist activism and environmental action more broadly at this event has added to my frustration and disillusionment with our institutions. 

I had expected plenty of critique about the role and perception of scientists as activists, but I was less prepared (and more alarmed) to notice the prevalence of recognisable ‘discourses of delay’: narratives leveraged - knowingly or unwittingly - as reasons not to act robustly to stave off climate, ecological and consequent societal collapse.

These included:

❌ Deflecting responsibility.

We heard politics and voting framed as the most (or potentially only) effective way to bring about change, with sweeping assertions made about the actions and priorities of the wider public e.g. that they “vote against the interests of younger people” and more generally that climate action is unpopular and thus unachievable. Even if this were true (which it isn’t*), perceived apathy and lack of care by others is no justification for replicating this ourselves, especially as scientists who are in a prime, privileged and trusted position to recognise the severity of the issues, communicate them effectively, and act constructively, bravely and creatively in response.

❌ Casting doubt on the urgent need for transformative action.

At points I really wondered whether some of the senior figures who spoke had anything close to a broad and up-to-date knowledge of the science underlying the Emergency. We heard arguments often made in favour of fossil fuel use that made me wonder whether their proponents even knew how far beyond safe limits we already are, let alone what it means for our near-term survival that heating and its impacts have accelerated and will continue to do so especially now tipping points have been crossed. Our arguments as to why we view it as is proportionate and effective for scientists to take bolder, more vigorous action were dismissed quite casually; the vibe I felt emanating from the more vocal members of the scientific establishment was dispassionate and complacent, entirely misaligned with the enormity of the danger.

❌ Emphasising potential costs of action disproportionately in the context of the hugely higher cost of continued delay. Incredibly, “intergenerational equity” was seemingly used as a reason not to pour resources into rapid decarbonisation, positioning action taken to protect future generations as incompatible with meeting the needs of people alive today. Were it not the case that a rapid worldwide transition to renewables is now considered feasible and highly cost effective, or were it not the case that energy efficiency, pollution reduction and nature restoration come with substantial health and wellbeing benefits, this still wouldn’t be a defensible position when millions are already experiencing the devastating, avoidable impacts of a lack of Emergency mitigation and adaptation.**

❌ Defeatism dressed up as realism.

Encapsulating this were the very final words from the panel: “I’m afraid Thomas Malthus was probably right”. What a choice that is from a respected figure of authority in science, to end by referencing 18th century predictions of mass starvation caused by population growth… rather than to end with a call to action that scientists try everything we [responsibly] can to intervene in today’s unfolding climate and ecological catastrophes.



A figure from my infographics deck, based on the typography established by Lamb et al. mapping the most common narratives used to delay climate action. 



As anticipated there were also plenty of criticisms of activism and activists e.g. that disruptive action is counterproductive, that by taking action using our scientist identities that we’re implying we are somehow superior etc etc, which I at least felt we were able to push back on at the time***. But in doing so we didn’t have the opportunity to give the wealth of constructive contributions and questions from the rest of the audience the airtime they deserved.

The constructive questions

I've felt heartened by the many positive and supportive interactions that were also part the event and its aftermath. These came from a broad range of representatives across science and policy, many of whom were keen to share how their own views did not align with the ones I have described here as harmful. Conversations about various experiences trying to create change within different roles, workplaces and contexts have continued throughout the week and I'm grateful for the new connections, insights and potential collaborations this has sparked. Some of the questions raised that I would have loved there to have been more discussion of at the event itself related to themes like:

🚧 How to address structural barriers to scientists participating in activism

This would have been a great opportunity to talk about the various issues affecting the science and education sector and how they might be overcome in ways that enable climate and social action as well as benefitting research and scientists themselves, drawing on the ideas such as the academic doughnut and work around how universities etc can facilitate advocacy and activism.

🛡️ How mounting attacks on, and declining trust in, science can be countered

The societal and political drivers of this are complex and something scientists are often quite naive to, but they are crucial for us to grapple with and confront. Emerging insights from scientists who have had to deal with such attacks for a long time (e.g. climate researchers, vaccine advocates etc) feel especially valuable to learn from here. 

🤳 How scientists can interface more effectively with the media and the public

News content around the Emergency has long been problematic, and as the crisis gets more severe, coverage appears to be declining in both volume and quality. Meanwhile climate misinformation on social media is surging. Debunking myths is an important skill but ‘innoculation’ against disinformation is perhaps an even more important work that scientists can be involved in too. I wrote about what I think makes effective Emergency science communication recently here, but ultimately actions speak louder than words, which is a huge part of our case that scientists be bolder and more visible as activists. 

✨ Leadership and role modelling from scientists and their institutions

This could have been an opportunity for rich discussion on how research institutes can transform to rise to the challenges of our times, and to talk about the behaviour change research on leading by example, (e.g. in low-carbon transitions). 

Photographs from the during the event (left) and afterwards with some of my favourite 'responsible science activists' (right). 



Personal Reflections

Across the breadth of the scientific community we do have common ground: we recognise climate and ecological breakdown as serious threats and that current action is insufficient. What constitutes appropriate and responsible, productive actions is nuanced and was always going to generate some disagreement…. but I was much less troubled by this than I was by what felt like a palpable lack of collective urgency and commitment to transformative action. Most concerning to me was where harmful - not to mention inaccurate, misleading and/or and unevidenced - delay narratives were coming from: the proponents of these ideas were scientists currently or previously in leadership roles within academic institutions, learned societies and/or policymaking. And they were some of the loudest, most confident and most influential voices in the room. 

I’m left questioning more deeply than ever the role of our institutions and those chosen to lead them. Most have undeniably positive intentions - my former workplace aspired to be a “University for Public Good” whilst the Royal Society positions itself as proponent of science “for the benefit of humanity”. They could be playing a key role in informing and enabling necessary, systemic changes… but as a result of embedded resistance to adapting and evolving as the world around us profoundly changes, how many are doing more harm than good? 

At the end of National Emergency Briefing in November, Prof Mike Berners-Lee urged senior figures in politics to be truly honest with themselves, and to step aside if they weren’t up to the job of leading with integrity and courage in the knowledge of how much danger we are all in. If we want our scientific institutions’ aspirations to translate into impact, I think we should be bringing this ultimatum to their leaders too. We can’t yet rely on our institutions - nor can we afford to wait for them - to change by themselves. To unlock their potential we have to apply pressure strategically, working in collaboration with the allies we find both within and on the outside of them. And as we do this, there are so many opportunities to contribute our skills as scientists in every movement and every community that needs them.  

* Polls and studies repeatedly show that concern remains high about environmental issues, that the vast majority of the UK want stronger climate action, and that willingness to take various forms of action is widely underestimated

** To list but a few examples ”climate-related disasters forcibly displaced 250 million people globally over the past decade”, “hundreds of millions of people are unable to safely go about their daily lives at the hottest times of the year”, “costs of heatwaves, droughts, and floods across the EU in summer 2025 reached €43 billion and could climb to €126 billion by 2029”, “climate change-induced food price shocks are on the rise leading to malnutrition, political upheaval and social unrest” … with the severity and range of all such impacts escalating all the time. 

*** See Charlie’s opening address for a snapshot of the evidence for the power of social movements and disruptive protest, as well as research on the ‘radical flank’ effect. In the recording Jeff and I both respond to why we choose to identify ourselves as scientists in the course of our activism (and it's not that we think we are superior!)

Reflections on effective climate and nature communication, following the National Emergency Briefing



You might have heard or read that last month (November 2025) over 1000 influential figures across UK politics, society and culture gathered for a first of its kind National Emergency Briefing on climate and nature. Ten experts laid out the facts about the polycrisis we are in, how all of our lives will be radically reshaped by it, and the actions that will make a positive impact in response. Since June I’ve worked with the NEB team as their science adviser, which has involved collaborating on the messaging and content of the briefing, as well as working with some of the scientist speakers to increase the clarity and impact of their talks. 

The National Emergency Briefing’s expert panel, fielding questions after their talks

Academics usually aren’t taught, nor really encouraged, to communicate research findings clearly, simply and impactfully. Throughout my time in research science, I’d attend seminars with reluctance and restlessness, frustrated by the all-too-common experience of learning very little from long, excessively detailed presentations that lacked relevance for most of the (often largely disengaged) audience… So nobody is more surprised than I am that it was a lecture in 2018 that marked such a clear turning point for me. It was a Thursday afternoon in the Autumn, and all 400 of the ‘postdoc’ scientists at the medical research institute I worked at were expected to attend a talk by a guest speaker, a doctor who was talking about the connections between climate and health. This was a subject I, naively, thought I already had a decent understanding of… but I was not prepared for what I heard that afternoon, when the doctor laid bare the imminent threats to our survival. I don’t remember the statistics or the graphs, but I vividly remember the moment he said he feared his own future and felt terrified for his kids’. I remember how I felt receiving the dire news over the course of that hour and how I felt when I left the room. It changed the course of my life. 

Seven years later that same doctor, Prof Hugh Montgomery, was among the ten experts presenting the National Emergency Briefing. And seven years on, our prognosis is no less frightening… the lack of political and societal leadership - and the lack of proportionate, emergency intervention - means the picture is much bleaker. When we’ve needed to be stepping up en masse, empowering one another with knowledge, galvanizing and collaborating on society-wide action, we’ve instead had misinformation, denial, temptations to delay and very understandable, very human wishful thinking get the better of us. This has already, and will continue to, cost us all dearly. But in the words of another of the briefing’s speakers, food system expert Prof Paul Behrens: “The best time to act was yesterday, the second best time is today.”

I have enormous respect for every one of my fellow academics, science communicators and activists who have taken on the often-uncomfortable yet vital task of speaking clearly and unequivocally on the Climate & Nature Emergency. None of us have a tried-and-tested formula for it: a different audience, or even the same audience on a different day, will respond differently. However carefully we do it, there will be those who criticise us - fairly, less-than-fairly, or downright maliciously. When we probably have a lot of competing pressures and demands on us, the necessary time, energy, confidence and emotional resilience can take a lot to muster. But given the escalating state of Emergency, we can’t let the difficulty and discomfort of the task stop us. Working together, sharing our knowledge openly and supporting one another allows us to face those challenges, so in this spirit, and drawing on the recommendations I made for National Emergency Briefing, here are some of the principles I use to guide my science communication. 

Simplicity wins

There’s something I see as a troublesome myth in science communication: that using complicated words and visuals makes you seem more credible. In my book, seeing that someone has taken the time and thought to select the most important information and present it in the clearest, most compelling form they can is a much stronger signal to trust the messenger. The stakes are high here - if we overwhelm or confuse our audiences, we risk causing them to disengage at the expense of taking on board vital, consequential information. Here are some pointers:

• Be selective and concise: choose the most important messages your audience need to take away with them and focus on landing those well as opposed to packing everything you can into the time or length that’s available or most appropriate. You can always signpost sources of more information that you’ve chosen not to include. 
• Simplify graphics, statistics and technical terminology: Data! Scientists need it and we can be drawn to presenting lots of it to make our case. But overusing complex graphics or sharing a deluge of statistics in overly technical language might be the quickest ways to lose your audience. So make sure you choose data carefully, avoiding “number overload”, and make sure any graphs you do present are simple enough to be understood quickly. 
• Emphasise key messages: You can use formatting and structural tools (e.g. subtitles in articles and clear titles on slides) to do help this. Repetition can also be useful to consolidate the most important points; providing a summary of key take-aways throughout and/or at the end is often appreciated by audiences. 

Less can be more: Examples at the top are slides from the UK chief scientific advisor’s briefing to a former prime minister, and below are from Climate Central’s key facts slide deck as of November 2025. Of course different levels of detail are appropriate for different contexts and audiences, and there are situations where technical detail is important: I’ve included these to illustrate that complex information can be more immediately understandable and impactful once simplified and distilled to emphasise the core messages. 

Know your audience

It would be incredibly useful and convenient if a one-size-fits-all approach to climate & nature communication existed! But in reality each specific audience and their specific context matters a huge amount to what will be most effective. Your impact will almost always be enhanced if you take the time to:

• Tailor your approach and message to align with your audience’s context, interest and what’s most likely to resonate with them. For example, you could choose examples from their “world” to illustrate your points, and explicitly join the dots between what you’re talking about and how their priorities will be impacted. 
• Avoid assuming knowledge, because not feeling included or that you’re ‘not clever enough’ to understand* is alienating. Providing enough background and choosing phrases appropriate to those less familiar with the subject can be done without patronising or boring those who are more comfortable with it. 
• Involve the audience (where possible). For trainings or events, engagement, interest and impact are usually increased wherever if it feels like a shared, participatory experience. I often ask the audience questions, encourage them to speak with one another, and/or include activities that mix up the format.  

* Very regularly I hear workshop participants tell me that they’re ‘not good at science’ or that they don’t see themselves as very capable of understanding scientific ideas. This is often based on bad experiences at school or with poorly-pitched science communication and rarely reflects their actual abilities. 

Engage with emotion

True understanding is not just about knowledge - there is an emotional component too. We can know a fact but until we feel why that fact matters to us, we are unlikely to act on it. It can feel daunting, exposing or “unscientific” (and for many people I know “un-British” too) to bring emotion into our communication… but I’d argue strongly it’s both rational and important to do so. I’ve often asked myself how much scientists’ cultural tendency to communicate in a dispassionate, “objective” way has detracted from the urgency of our messages. However I also wouldn’t generally recommend delivering the difficult realities of our polycrisis through floods of tears, however proportionate that might be. Striking the right balance allows us to convey immediacy and severity of the Emergency without compromising our clarity and credibility. Here are some of the approaches I often use to thread this particular needle: 

• Show why this matters. Rather than simply stating what the implications are, illustrate it with something tangible to your audience. A photograph or a newspaper headline can communicate instantly what a screen full of graphs never could. Human stories are particularly powerful.
• Share how the knowledge you are sharing has impacted you such as how it’s made you feel and what it’s motivated you to do in response. If this is a step you’re wary of taking, you might consider quoting other people. 
• Consider the emotional “journey” of your audience, thinking about how they would ideally come away feeling. I have found aspects of The Work that Reconnects useful inspiration here.

Show as well as tell: Data can be “brought to life” by showing its tangible, human impacts, for example via news headlines, powerful images such as these portraits by Gideon Mendel, and quotes or stories from affected people.

Trust yourself

However many times I do it, and however thoroughly I prepare, I’m not sure I’ll ever feel properly confident standing up in front of an audience and talking about anything, let alone about something as important to “get right” as the climate and nature Emergency. But the risks of getting it not-quite-perfect are far outweighed by the risks of not finding the courage to try. I’ve found it helpful to:

• Be upfront about your knowledge and limitations: You can’t be expected to have all the answers. Communicating about your background, motivations and nerves can help build empathy and trust with your audiences. 
• Resist getting defensive or focussing on detracting narratives: When misinformation and even blatant attacks on science are becoming alarmingly normal, it can be tempting to vehemently defend your points, sometimes at the expense of communicating them clearly. My best advice would be to back yourself: lay out the science and case for proportionate action in a compelling way, then be prepared to respond to common delay narratives if they come to you. 



What now?

Your communication may be ‘done’ when the audience leaves the room, when your article is published etc… but that’s just the start of the impacts it’ll have. It can take time for people to process the experience they’ve had and what their next steps may be, and in most cases you’ll never know the ripples you create. In some situations it might not be possible or appropriate to “follow up” with audiences but in most cases there are useful things you can do to help enhance the positive impact of your work. These include:

• Providing summary resources that enable audiences to recall, consolidate and feel confident talking about what they’ve learned. 
• Sharing your sources and recommendations for deeper learning. 
• Signposting appropriate actions, support and community. This helps to guard against leaving people feeling disempowered or alone. 

I hope you find this encouraging and informative. I feel conscious that it’s imperfect and non-exhaustive… but that by my own admission that’s not a good enough reason not to share it! Please feel free to contact me if you have suggestions to improve it, or if you’d like to collaborate on future communication projects. 🌱

As we face an escalating planetary crisis in a “post-truth” era, how can scientists be most effective in informing and accelerating positive transformations?



If you’re a scientist reading this post there is a good chance that you are deeply worried about the unfolding impacts of climate and ecological breakdown. There's also a good chance that you feel a sense of powerlessness: maybe you don’t know what to do about it, or believe that nothing you do will make a difference? If this is you, you’re not alone. I know this anecdotally - scientists express these difficult feelings to me regularly - but also empirically; in an era where the scientific consensus is clear that humans are continuing to drive existential threats to our only home, scientists themselves report overwork, fear of personal and professional consequences and a perceived lack of support as major barriers to engaging in the types of action they want to be part of.* Just a few years ago, I was thinking and feeling all of the above. But now I know that these barriers to action can be overcome, and that doing so can bring us motivation, empowerment, community and hope. 

Driven by the question of what a scientist’s role could or should be in an imperrilled world where our warnings and evidence are so often ignored or dismissed, the past few years have led me to protests, to parliament, and ultimately to parting ways with a research career I truly loved (more on this here). Along the way I have learned so much from so many brave, compassionate and perceptive scientists and change-makers. In this post I’d like to share two insights this has brought me to: why scientists have so much power to make a difference, and the many ways we can use that power effectively.



The "why"...

Scientists, as well as academics more broadly, are in a strong position to accelerate transitions needed to protect nature, mitigate global heating and adapt to a changing world. Here are some of the reasons why:

• We have valuable skills in understanding, distilling and communicating complex concepts. Converting data and evidence into simpler, more usable outputs is precisely what many of us have been trained to do throughout our careers. Whatever our discipline, we can draw on these foundations in cultivating our own and others’ knowledge about climate, nature and effective Emergency action. 
• Scientists are still trusted messengers. Amidst alarming trends towards science, experts and even truth itself being undermined and dismissed, trust in scientists remains high around the world, with most agreeing that scientists should be more actively engaged and policymaking and wider society. Public trust in scientists also means that when we take action as part of environmental social movements, we can help challenge pervasive, inaccurate stereotypes about who cares and who is involved.
• Scientists can have greater public reach and access to media than many other groups do, as a result of our networks, perceived legitimacy and (in circumstances such as being a visible presence at a protest) novelty. 
• Scientist solidarity is powerful and necessary. Scientists working on climate and biodiversity have been sounding the alarm for decades, yet those warnings have not translated into proportionately urgent action. The more of us there are acting in line with the findings of the scientific community, the more likely we are to have our warnings widely heard, taken seriously and acted upon. Conversely, acting as passive bystanders risks undermining scientists' calls for necessary, transformative action. 
• We all have a personal investment in there being a habitable Earth for ourselves and future generations. Additionally, for scientists' work to make a positive difference to people and other species, there is a fundamental need to protect the climate, ecological and societal systems that make it possible: there is “no research on a dead planet”. 



Given all of these reasons (and more), do scientists have greater responsibility to push for change? Albert Einstein, whose image has come to symbolise “scientist” to many, is often quoted as saying, "Those who have the privilege to know have the duty to act". I’ve come to agree, but would add that stepping into that responsibility isn’t all ‘duty’ and sacrifice. We have so much more to gain from working together to secure the best possible version of our collective future than we all risk losing if we don’t.



How can scientists and academics respond to the Emergency? Here are just some of our tried-and-tested approaches.



...and the "how".

So what can we practically do as scientists facing this escalating Emergency? Our recent research article and accompanying piece out today in The Conversation focus on the many ways scientists can support the social movements pushing for systemic change. Participating in nonviolent protest and being a part of the communities that have formed around this has been a huge part of my own journey, and I would love to see many more scientists benefitting directly from the movements that have informed and empowered my actions to date…but I also appreciate that not everyone is equally able to or safe to participate. What’s most important at this critical moment, is that we each act in the best way we can, and that we support one another to do the same. This will look different for each of us. It’ll be affected by our strengths, our privileges, our relationships, our vulnerabilities and our restrictions. We might be best-positioned to act from within a social movement, in our local or professional communities, via our job(s), from behind a computer, out on the streets or any combination thereof. With this in mind the following is neither prescriptive nor exhaustive - simply six broad areas where we know scientists can make valuable contributions. These draw heavily on the work and ideas of my great friend Dr Charlie Gardner. 

1. Learn: We can use our skills to better understand the crises, possible interventions and the disparity between political, corporate or institutional rhetoric and the action needed to protect societies and ecosystems.
2. Communicate: We can disseminate our knowledge of the Emergency via one-to-one conversations, by leading trainings, seminars or workshops, or through traditional and social media. 
3. Influence: We can push for meaningful change and action within our workplaces, networks, organisations and democracies. This involves engaging pro-actively with people who have decision-making powers, reevaluating and challenging the ‘status quo’, and leading by example with our choices personally and professionally.
4. Activate: Social scientific evidence, as well as historical precedents, show that social movements can have great capacity to catalyse rapid transitions. There’s a huge range of strategies - from traditional campaigning to civil disobedience - where scientists’ positions, skills, expertise, credibility and networks could be invaluable.
5. Create the better alternatives: Our knowledge and technical capabilities can be applied to building the resilient, equitable and sustainable systems our times demand. This could involve shifting our professional focus and/or engaging with movements and initiatives outside of our formal roles.
6. ‘Regenerate’: The realities of the Emergency are uncomfortable, challenging and frightening. A better outlook is only possible if we collectively acknowledge this, act with compassion and support one another amidst difficult transitions, hardship, grief and uncertainty. Balance, rest, empathy, and community are essential to sustaining action. 

Writing earlier this year with an old friend and former university classmate about how algae are changing as our oceans heat and acidify, we concluded that “much like the incredible life we study, the scientific community can - and must - evolve to meet the existential challenges of our age”. We have no time to lose. 

* See Wanting to be part of change but feeling overworked and disempowered: Researchers’ perceptions of climate action in UK universities Latter et al, 2024, PLoS Climate (open access) & Climate change engagement of scientists Dablander et al, 2024, Nature Climate Change. This study is paywalled but a key finding is that the majority of scientists said they wanted to engage in climate advocacy but a minority actually did. Similarly, almost half of the surveyed scientists said they’d be willing to engage in protests and/or nonviolent civil disobedience but a much smaller minority do so in practice.