This chapter examines the evolving role of neuroscientists as advocates in public discourse. This chapter documents the transformation from traditional “knowledge transmission” models toward active interpretive engagement where researchers contextualize findings within broader societal implications. The analysis demonstrates how remaining silent on consequential issues represents abdication rather than neutrality. This occurs as neuroscientific findings increasingly influence decisions across education, criminal justice, and technology regulation. This chapter traces the shift from value-neutral to value-transparent communication, arguing that effective scientist-advocates must explicitly distinguish between empirical findings, interpretive judgments, and normative positions while preserving their distinctive credibility. Through a comprehensive Scientist-Advocacy Framework Matrix, the analysis maps different forms of advocacy based on their relationship to established scientific evidence and the researcher’s specific expertise. The analysis reveals that intellectual honesty—including acknowledgment of uncertainties and limitations—paradoxically enhances rather than undermines authority. This occurs by demonstrating the integrity that distinguishes scientific voices from purely ideological positions. The discussion progresses through practical strategies for building coalitions across disciplines, requiring scientists to find common ground with diverse partners, translate complex concepts across professional languages, and navigate power dynamics that inevitably arise in collaborative environments. Substantial attention is devoted to policy engagement, emphasizing the importance of understanding policy-making realities, recognizing strategic timing opportunities, and building relationships that extend beyond transactional encounters toward sustained trust and mutual understanding. This chapter concludes with personal reflections on finding an authentic voice while navigating tensions between research and advocacy roles, acknowledging that effective scientist-advocacy requires ongoing learning and adaptation, treating public engagement as an inherently experimental process requiring the same evidence-based refinement that characterizes rigorous science itself.