Advocacy can influence the scientific process in several ways, beginning with the questions we ask. Most questions in ecology are influenced by our preconceptions about nature or current fashions in the discipline. The distinction is important, for the first question leads to an unbiased examination of environmental effects, whereas the second restricts attention only to environmental damages. We often initiate a study because of some environmental debate and the need to bring scientific evidence to bear on the issues, so some element of advocacy in the questions we ask is probably unavoidable. Biased questions, however, do not lead to good science.
Advocacy can also affect the way a study is designed.
It can lead to conscious or unconscious bias in the selection of study areas, the way sampling stations are distributed, or the degree to which pseudoreplication is tolerated. Whether or not values are implicit in the questions we ask, the study design and analysis must be rigorous and unbiased. Perhaps the most pernicious and subtle effect of advocacy is on the interpretation of results. Even if a study is objectively framed and conscientiously designed and analyzed, the findings still must be placed in a context. Advocacy can reinforce this tendency, particularly because environmental debates are often emotionally charged.