Like it or not, anyone involved in communicating science will end up facing decisions about where the boundary lies between basic reporting and advocacy. Some scientific findings, like those surrounding the safety and efficacy of vaccination, call out for public education and political action. The U.S. government is the largest source of funding in many fields, which inextricably links science to policy decisions. And this year sees a U.S. presidential election in which there are stark differences in the acceptance of basic science between many candidates. Where is the boundary between informing about science--including its attendant politics--and advocating? When is advocacy appropriate? Is it even possible to avoid it? And how can staking out positions on issues unrelated to science (perhaps on Twitter or Facebook) influence how your professional work as a science communicator or scientist is perceived?