What Does Advocating Mean?

I stumbled upon an article that recited a poll held by Scientific American and Nature about people's attitude towards science and scientists in general. It is clear that as both of these web pages concentrate on publishing material related to science they attract people interested about science, and it's evident they have very little or no anti-science agenda behind them. There was, however, an interesting point in the poll that caught my eye.
They phrased one of the questions, shown with its poll result in the picture above, in a way that seems a bit contradictorily to me: "Scientist should speak out about what the science says but avoid advocacy", the purple bar.

There's no possible way to answer the question without simultaneously answering that science's approach should be limited - it's a question that leads the answerer and possibly gives an illusion of how the answering mass actually relate to spreading scientific information in the society. It also made me think what scientific advocating actually means, and I'd like to know what it means to my readers or people who answered the poll. I hope a conversation in the comments section will ensue. This might be a semantic problem, and thus the question's usefulness could be criticized. Despite all the attention I've given to this certain word I choose not to criticize it, and I shall explain my reasoning after I demonstrate what the word advocate is possibly meant to mean.

To start of I'll explain some seemingly obvious examples of how religious organisations advocate, of which converting is a great example. Converting often relies on expressing how a certain religion can bring purpose to one's life explaining what God or other deity(s) want us to do and why. A very common part of converting is also the promise of afterlife, and convincing the person that there is indeed a heaven or paradise but that it's meant to only those who believe couples the aforementioned. It's also necessary to convince the converted that a particular religion has gotten the picture at least somewhat right, but it most likely happens alongside the process of explaining the wonders a religion has to offer.

There's also a different kind of advocating which "targets" those who already belong to the faith. Masses, sermons, vespers, speeches and using media to promote faith and religious orders, big events full of people of the same faith - actually I've never heard of an event where the main purpose is that people of different faiths meat and discuss. Without going into the detail of such acts it is pretty clear what the meaning is from the viewpoint of the institution: to strengthen the faith. I don't want to sound cruel, convicting or judging, but it seemed to me that this was the straighest way to express what I think on the matter. Feel free to point out if I've mistaken, because I'd like to understand these matters to a greater degree. =)

Sometimes things go a little wrong from an objective point of view. Or is a long speech telling you how there will be a day of judgement, that it is a necessity to that certain faith and the purpose of all life, a healthy message to be sent out, especially when it is not shown any evidence to back it up at all? Afterall, we're living in a world with nuclear weaponry, so someone might well go from this to the thought "hey, I'll just convert myself and nuke the shit out of everything and get to the paradise!" - I know that sounds wacky, but there still are people who think homosexuality is a disease, drugs an absolute evil, money a slaver and George W. Bush worth the re-election.

Again I've at a point where it is hard to avoid being critical and not seem offensive to those who believe and have faith, and who follow their religious dogma - I seek not to offend and I wish you understand, and that you again bring up the aggravation, if any. I shall refrain from blaming it directly on religiousness, but even I if don't like to admit it the religions as organisations have responsibility of horrifying acts done under the name of the religion. They are, afterall, the authority that can affect the numerous believers under their protective wing and they should act according to their great responsibility.

So what was the poll's shrouded question I started out with all about in relation to this? Advocate as a word has a meaning that doesn't serve well in terms with scientific information, both because such information is more useful to someone who him or herself actively seeks it out and because the purpose of science is to avoid being stagnant - to prevent established norms from taking over progress. The question is somewhat manipulative, forcing some who wish to see science seeking more attention to answer so that he judges a form of attention seeking. It also seems that many scientifically incorrect facts are still believed to be the truth - did you know that 30% of Europeans believe that the Sun orbits the Earth? A study made in 2005 (page 41) that people still believe in many peculiar things, and unfortantely for those more rationally thinking religious persons, often due to a religious backround.

Advocations and declarations might not result into anything else than a chaotic, unstable environment for scientific thoughts. It's the same effect when you just directly trump that the other person taking part in the conversation is wrong about something - he will most likely just get aggravated by this. Most often it's better to softly produce answers, explanations and answers than directly refute. Hence, "but avoid advocacy" - I nice pick of words, even though it seems shady.