Scientists’ role in outreach and advocacy has been debated extensively, but empirical evidence on its perceived legitimacy is scarce. We contacted scientists researching climate change to investigate scientists’ engagement levels, as well as expectations regarding political and public engagement. We then compared how scientists (N = 1107) and German and US citizens (N = 884) view scientists’ engagement and how scientists’ advocacy affects their credibility. We find that perceptions differ across countries, with scientists perceiving more strongly than the public that scientists should politically and publicly engage. However, the public agrees that scientists should engage, and that they should increase these efforts. The majority of citizens agrees that scientists should advocate for climate-related policies and work closely with policymakers but refrain from endorsing climate protests. Further, openly supporting climate policies does not adversely affect scientists’ perceived trustworthiness or honesty, while it negatively affects perceptions of scientists’ objectivity. Our study provides empirical evidence that can help climate change researchers to better understand the public’s demand for, and perceived legitimacy of, different engagement activities.

科学家在外展和倡导中的作用已进行了广泛的辩论，但是关于其合法性的经验证据很少。我们联系了研究气候变化的科学家，以调查科学家的参与程度以及对政治和公众参与的期望。然后，我们比较了科学家（N = 1107）和德国和美国公民（N= 884）查看科学家的参与以及科学家的倡导如何影响他们的信誉。我们发现，各国之间的看法不同，科学家比公众更强烈地认为科学家应该在政治上和公共上参与。但是，公众同意科学家应参与其中，并应加大这些努力。大多数公民都同意，科学家应该倡导与气候有关的政策，并与政策制定者密切合作，但不要认可气候抗议活动。此外，公开支持气候政策不会对科学家的可信度或诚实度产生负面影响，而会对科学家的客观性产生负面影响。我们的研究提供了经验证据，可以帮助气候变化研究人员更好地了解公众的需求，