 Some policy analysts argue that if scientific work is to impact policy, it must be objective (Pielke 2007). However, advocating personal contextual values is alleged to undercut that objectivity (Burke &amp; Lauenroth (2009), but see Strong (2008)). If one claims that biodiversity is intrinsically valuable, this value isn’t widely shared, and it cannot be reasonably defended by its proponents, then conservation biologists risk their work being ignored or dismissed. On the other hand, if one advocates the conservation of biodiversity on the basis of ecosystem services including carbon sequestration, waste decomposition, purification of air and water, pollination, etc., and loss of these services would negatively impact humans, then this advocacy would be far less controversial (Brussard &amp; Tull 2007). In addition, one might reconsider how we think about science itself. We recognize that the enterprise is not “value-neutral”. Should we regard it as less than objective because of its advocacy (Kincaid, Dupré, &amp; Wylie 2007)? How might we educate the public to think more carefully and clearly about the role of values in science?