WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL WITH ADVOCACY ANYWAY? Some of our colleagues, especially those new to Sea Grant, often come to us with this question and our answer is much more than, "it's tradition." Here are some of the reasons: • We're often dealing with public goods, those things that we own in common (air quality, water quality, natural resources, fisheries, access to beaches, etc.) where everyone has a stake in how those resources are used. • If we're dealing with public goods, no one has more right

more »

... o them than anyone else. • As a result the only body that represents everyone allocates them: our elected officials (or those who they designate to manage those resources). • Sea Grant is empowered-and funded-by the US Congress to provide our best scientific information on managing our coastal and marine resources: public goods. • Our elected officials speak for the majority of us and then entrust Sea Grant with giving the public our very best scientific information, so we must not color that information with our own biases. • It boils down to Sea Grant having an ethical responsibility to fairly represent the best science on issues of coastal resource management. But, aren't there times when we should or may advocate action? Yes, for example: • If we are implementing an enacted rule or law, we can be advocates. § Why? Because elected officials (representing the public) have made a decision and embodied it in a law. § As honest brokers, we're informing the public about a decision regarding resource management. • We often advocate with respect to process even if we do not with respect to outcomes. • Yet, when we advocate for one course of action over another, we are taking a position that the approach will provide an optimal outcome-according to whom? There is a difference between our own predilections and a recommendation based on research or law or legislated or adjudicated policy.