Regulatory inaction has been suggested as a prime cause for slow development of the US’s marine aquaculture industry. Many scientists see the solutions to this issue as outside of their skill set. On the contrary, we argue that application of science to inform permitting is underdeveloped and a keystone need for science-informed government decision making. At the heart of the Federal regulatory process for permitting new aquaculture sites is environmental, economic, and social analysis prescribed by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). These analyses are reported in environmental impact statements (EIS) or assessments (EA) and are meant to apply the best available science from a range of scientific disciplines to understand a given project’s range of impacts and mitigation options. In many ways, NEPA forces an ecosystem approach to aquaculture permitting by addressing multiple impacts and requirements from numerous applicable federal laws within one document. However, it also sets up a complex process that by its nature requires diverse and specialized scientific expertise. For analyses related to aquaculture, the diversity of issues requires the writers of the NEPA document to consider “best available science” from disciplines as different as economics, engineering, oceanography, ecology, social sciences, genetics, epidemiology, health, spatial planning, nutrition, and many others. It also requires the ability to turn the vast universe of discipline-specific science into a series of de facto combinations of risk assessments and best management practices. Typically, these are complex documents and are done by specialists hired by the government (but often using the proponent’s money) for the purpose. Given the diversity of issues to be addressed within a NEPA analysis, writers are generalists regarding the various scientific disciplines. In addition, NEPA regulations prescribe limits on document length, necessitating brevity for each topic. In many areas of government decision making (including fisheries management), special issue-specific scientific documents and tools--generically called Science Advice--fill the gap between the universe of science and regulatory decisions. Science advice considers the “best available science“ and presents this information in a format useful for decision making. These documents and tools directly provide decision support for environmental, economic and social analyses but do not make the decisions. NOAA has recently published a few science advice products for this purpose (with more in the works), however, the need is still great for targeted advice documents. Recent examples of science advice products are the two Aquaculture Opportunity Area Atlases published in 2022 (Aquaculture Science Advice Handbook. There is a role for government and non-government scientists to focus their expertise on science advice, and we challenge you to consider applying your science skills to help address regulatory needs.