In 2016 a full-page advertisement was placed by 56 Australian scientists in the Brisbane Courier Mail. The context of the advertisement was the continuing commitment of Australian governments, federal and state, to coal mining and coal-fired power stations despite overwhelming evidence connecting this activity to the severe damage being suffered by the Great Barrier Reef (Hoegh-Guldberg, 2015). As well as presenting their scientific credentials in the advertisement-together they had devoted more than 1200 years to studying climate change, marine ecosystems and the Great Barrier Reef-the scientists prioritised the Reef's economic value over its conservation values. The burning of fossil fuels, they wrote, is 'directly threatening a major economic resource. The World Heritage listed Great Barrier Reef earns multiple billions for the economy and provides jobs to tens of thousands of Australians' (Courier Mail, 2016). '[T]here can be no new coal mines. . .', the scientists demanded, and 'No new coal-fired power stations'. This attempt to influence public opinion and thus political outcomes through media appeared in the face of what is now recognised as one of the world's most notable failures in conservation: the continuing destruction of a global nature 'superstar'. We suggest in this chapter that such public acts are often rendered futile because of a poor understanding of the communicative processes underpinning the research-to-policy pathway. This is troubling given the risks some scientists-working within expectations of independence and measured professional response-take when entering public debate. But this is only part of the story. While many scientists do not have the necessary communication skills or knowledge to join controversial debates (Besley & Tanner, 2011) or have been