Debates over scientists’ appropriate contributions to policy-making are prominent in a variety of natural resources fields. The issue is often presented as one of “responsible advocacy.” But this framing locks us into a paradox: Scientists who advocate aim to be effective in the policy arena, but by advocating lose their credibility. In this preliminary review of the issue, I argue that we can avoid the paradox by acknowledging a wider range of speech acts structuring scientists’ obligations in the policy process. Scientists can advocate–but they can also report, give their assessments, make recommendations, and especially, offer good advice.