Science and advocacy

This is an issue that has been crossing my mind for a few days now. The result of this was an article that I read which debated whether scientists can actually advocate for animals or habitats they are studying. Some people say they shouldn't, while others say they should and both arguments have some validity to them.
If you define the purpose of a biology scientist, it is to discover how the field of biology works through observation and experimentation. For the results and the data to be of any significance then the science must be completely objective and not biased. Arguments for the validity of data collected by scientists who are advocating for conservation can come into discussion as well. People tend to believe that researchers fond of a particular animal will skew data their way to show how the animals they are studying require a lot more conservation efforts. Predators tend to get the spotlight as trophic cascades have allowed an inside view into how top predators affect the community of an ecosystem. However where does it stop? Naturally with trophic cascades you can go as far as you would like and still attribute certain effects to predators or herbivores. This is what worries scientists as some of them may end up attributing way to much into certain animals while that may not be the case.
However advocating scientists tend to the ones most passionate about the subject they study. They often advocate because no science or even false science is used in conservation efforts and to create management plans. An example of that is Jay Mallone who recently published a paper criticising the science behind the Montana wolf management plan. Although this sort of action can be viewed from both sides of the same coin(one being that he is right and the other being that he is being favourable of the animal thus refusing to see the reason of the management plan), I think that advocates tend to be in favour of good proper science that will give the animals/habitats they are trying to preserve a fighting chance.
I suppose it is up to each individual researcher and scientist to know when to distance themselves. It is a crucial skill to learn and accept that perhaps a portion of the animals you love and study will have to be shot down as part of a government’s management plan or for development. Of course there will be those scientists who fail to see when it is time to accept things due to their attachment to animals but then again what is right for habitats or animals may not be as objective as we think. People opinions differ and probably will, which is why science is constantly a debate and a challenging world.