John Ruffin, former head of the National Institute of Minority Health and Health Disparities wrote:
"The 19th-century scientist and pathologist Rudolph Virchow gave voice to many of our present-day concerns about disparities and went a long way toward defining the task before us. A socially minded man, he believed that science should speak the language of the common people and that medicine should serve the public's health. He wrote, 'If medicine is to fulfill her greatest task, then she must enter the political and social life…'"
Do you agree and why? Is it permissible for scientists to become advocates in the areas of their research? What steps can one take to balance advocacy with the objectivity that is considered the ideal in scientific inquiry?
I generally agree with this statement. No one is objective and I think science often hides under this false shield of objectivity. As introduced in the article by Resnik and Elliot, there is increasing recognition that scientists decide what questions to ask based on their set of values and moral belief system, how they might want to contribute to the world and what they think is important. I think scientists are naturally advocates in their area of research because they have chosen to dedicate a part of their career to it. Being a more vocal advocate I think is also appropriate. Problems can definitely arise where there may be conflicts of interests—a scientist may be tempted to exaggerate research findings in order to get more research funding support, or one may do this unconsciously because of their beliefs. I think balancing advocacy and objectivity first takes honesty that we are non-objective beings who find passion and inspiration to ask certain scientific questions for many non-objective reasons. I also agree with the article’s suggestion of finding this balance with outside review and discussion.