EDITORIAL Speaking truth to power ‘Speaking truth to power’ is a grand statement, attributed originally to a Quaker pamphlet in 1955, subsequently used as the title for Anita Hill’s (1997) [1] book on sexual harassment and perhaps most well- known in policy circles through the book Speaking Truth to Power: the art and science of policy analysis by Aaron Wildavsky (1987) [2]. Scholarly publication is about speaking truth to power. There appears to be mounting evidence that this important role for research and scholars is under some threat. Universities have changed—with a push towards greater commercialisation. As stated by Marginson [3], ‘business acumen has become a more important source of competitive advantage than academic capacity’ (p. 81). The rise of ‘think tanks’ as places of research endeavour [4] provides competi- tion in the market place of policy influence. However, ‘think tank’ researchers are more akin to policy entrepreneurs than independent, objective scientists [5]. Commissioned and tendered research can take precedence over investigator-driven research. More pernicious than these broad changes in academic circumstances, however, is the suggestion that gov- ernments do interfere with academic freedom. For example, Macintyre [6] notes Ministerial intervention to override peer review processes in the awarding of research grants. Science can take a battering as data are misrepresented for political reasons [7]. The degree of concern about the manipulation of science by policy has been demonstrated in America, with 12 000 scientists signing a statement to protest against political interference in the scientific process [8]. Almost paradoxical to the above points is the exhortation to researchers to ‘make a difference’. The relevance of research to public policy is receiving increasing attention (for example [9 – 12]). Scholars are being asked to ensure that the research questions are relevant and contextualised to public policy. Dissemination has become a central feature of effective research practice. Evidence-based policy and evidence- based practice, ‘bridging the gap’, translational research, linking research with policy and practice are all common catch-crys. Without doubt this greater focus on the direct, instrumental use of research to improve society is welcomed; however, it also heralds the possibility of a lesser focus on the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. This new ethos among scholars to engage in research that ‘makes a difference’ comes with potential baggage. It raises the thorny issue of the role of scholars as advocates. On one hand, it is argued that researchers should have greater public relevance and accountability—making sure that research is connected with the public good and that it is disseminated effectively. On the other hand, researchers are asked to preserve independence and autonomy, and operate as neutral and dispassio- nate conveyors of the ‘evidence’ which can then be taken up and used by policy makers. This, however, may not be sufficient to achieve the goals of enhancing public policy, because the use of the evidence is left entirely up to the recipients. Thus the role of the advocate, who is deliberately pushing, arguing, supporting a particular policy outcome. Effective advocacy that involves conveying informa- tion passionately and symbolically can conflict with the balanced, critical and neutral stance of an academic. This unfortunate characterisation of both positions is not helpful. A simplistic dichotomy between researcher and advocate needs to be replaced with a more sophisti- cated appreciation of the nature of advocacy, the role of advocacy without departing from the science; differentiation of scholarly criticism from political criticism; differentiation of information from persua- sion; and identification of the ways in which advocacy can form a central part of academic life (see, for example, [13]). All this points to the critical importance of indepen- dent scholarly institutions to maintain a voice that can speak truth to power. As Executive Editor of Drug and Alcohol Review, I believe the journal and other scholarly pub- lications have an obligation to ‘speak truth to power’. Drug and Alcohol Review (March 2008), 27, 113 – 114 ISSN 0959-5236 print/ISSN 1465-3362 online/08/020113–02 Ó Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs DOI: 10.1080/09595230701858453