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 the statement. At the end of the day, medical science research is conducted to benefit the general public, whether it is through generating knowledge or using that knowledge to create health policies that would help the public. Since so much of health disparities and health care disparities is influenced by structural and economic barriers in the “political and social life”, it is imperative that medical science engages with the public in order to maximize its impact. It is definitely permissible for scientists to become advocates in their field of research. In fact, one can argue that it is their social responsibility to address the value implications of their work. Most scientists are already advocates for their field simply by virtue of “problem selection”, that is engaging in a particular research topic and publishing those findings involves an implicit endorsement of its values, even at a minimum level. In addition, many scientists discuss policy implications of their research in scholarly articles and commentaries and many publicly advocate for specific policies related to their research. However, it is important for scientists to balance advocacy with objectivity. Some ways they can do so include obtaining feedback from independent parties before, during and after the research process; collaborating with and seeking help from scholars who have experience in ethics, politics and public policy; working with public relation officials to determine how to communicate their results to the public; disclosing and addressing their value assumptions when commenting on policy implications from their research; and seeking help from advisory bodies (developed by scientific organizations or government agencies) to tackle the ethical issues related to balancing advocacy and objectivity.