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 do agree with this statement. In some ways, I think it’s impossible to avoid being advocates in the area of our research. The areas that we choose to focus on are a reflection of our personal and professional values. By publicizing the results we advocate for the importance of our findings and, by extension, the importance of the area of scientific inquiry. We have a responsibility to apply the scientific method to disparities research in the same way it is applied to any other type of research so we can expand the body of knowledge around disparities. It’s easy as a scientist to feel passionate about the importance of our results; I don’t think that’s a negative thing! But in order to maintain objectivity, we must apply the same principles of hypothesis development and testing and careful interpretation without over-estimation of the significance of the results. It can be useful to have a more objective partner or mentor review one’s data and the conclusions being drawn to ensure they are well aligned with one another.