Is it proper for a "scientist" to be seen with an advocacy group

[gejohnston]

51. really?

Yes I do, but there is also regurgitating what someone else says, without any are a very good explanation on why it matters, and being more honest about it.

(a) you don't seem to engage with the actual science, all you do is accuse all of the scientists of serial dishonesty when their results don't support your ideology, and
(b) you have a habit of making things up on the spot when the facts don't go your way.

I question their honesty. I do no such thing, how about you actually give an example? I do believe you project a lot.

a) they are privately funded
(b) they support both scientific research as well as political advocacy and advertisements designed for the general audience
(c) right-wing loons and industry propagandists think they are "biased"

The biggest difference one supports research to find cures or treatments to cancer, and not research trying to prove tobacco causes cancer. I have never seen industry propagandists attacking the ACS.

Speaking of political intervention into the scientific process, one fact that (surprise!) doesn't seem to bother you one bit is that a reason that you see private funding of gun violence studies is because the NRA used its political influence in congress to cut off the CDC's funding of gun violence research. This, of course, is by far the biggest distortion of the scientific process that has occurred in all of gun violence research, but you with your insistence on scientific purity don't seem to care at all.

Is the CDC actually the proper agency to deal with crime? IIRC, one of the studies in question was Kellerman's "a gun is a magical talisman" study. That did smack of advocacy, which makes it different than the others. Stem cells, for example, researchers were looking for ways to use them to cure diseases, not advocate their use or not. That may be nitpicky to you, it is actually a big difference.