In a well-cited 1996 editorial in "Science," "The Activist Scientist," Jaleh Daie calls for scientists to take an assertive role in educating politicians and the public about the importance of government support for research. She writes that most scientists are reluctant to become involved in political lobbying for a variety of reasons--time pressures, a generally defeatist attitude toward the political and legislative process, and the false perception that activist roles for researchers are "inappropriate." To counter those concerns, Daie relates how her own decision to wear the hat of "scientist citizen" has been especially rewarding. Moreover, she says, scientists stand to lose most directly if they don't advocate for their own livelihood. Her points make perfect sense. Thirteen years later, people should call for another kind of scientist activism: promoting animal welfare, protection, and conservation. That kind of activism has been seriously neglected, even discouraged, in the scientific community. And in the past couple of years people have seen the tragic consequences. Many scientists do, at one point or another, possess feelings of concern for their research subjects, but they shy (or run) away from activism for the same reasons that Daie outlines--time pressures, feeling ineffectual in the face of huge problems, and, most of all, the sense that it is inappropriate and unscientific to assume the role of activist or advocate. Critics suggest that science and advocacy, objective data and values, are fundamentally incompatible. Science and advocacy are only incompatible when values corrupt the integrity of research. The very nature of the scientific enterprise should, and does, ensure that cases in which that happens are identified and dealt with. Despite those checks and balances, however, established scientists (to say nothing of younger ones and students) are highly reluctant to dip their toes into the waters of advocacy. Many scientists believe that welfare advocacy will lead to the demise of animal research. But the worst that would happen is that they would continue the natural, inexorable process of human cultural evolution with respect to other animals. The author contends that advocacy is a proper role for scientists. The scientific community bears the responsibility of advocacy for animal welfare because scientists know the most about the subjects they study. They should not leave animal welfare and protection solely to purely advocacy organizations. They should provide the data-driven guidance that is the sine qua non of science.