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 also generally agree with this statement. Scientists can be advocates, and apply the same metrics, protocols, and presumed objectivity that one would apply to other areas of scientific inquiry. It may also help create data/additional language to support the narrative around social determinants. Including scientists in advocacy may allow for further exploration of these complex systems especially as we seek to understand issues like interaction among different determinants. Similarly to any scientific inquiry, the investigator must remain true to their original hypothesis, create protocols and analysis plans in advance of data collection, seek out IRB review/approval, and follow the same tenants of any scientific research.