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?
The purpose of medicine is to reduce suffering and improve the human condition and to achieve these goals, medicine must communicate effectively with lay people in order to instigate political and social change. Likewise, the goal of science is to ascertain the truth but not merely for its own sake. Only truth that improves the human condition is relevant. As such, I would suspect that many scientists who are passionate about their research strongly advocate it, although they may not always be effective at doing so. The premise of the question implies that advocacy may not always be consistent with the truth. However, I suggest defining advocacy as one who supports the truth, regardless of its nature, which is inherently objective. Advocacy should not be for oneself or the products of one’s labors. It should be for the betterment of mankind. Achieving such objectivity requires a degree of self-awareness, integrity, and openness to criticism as well as a set of scientific tools applied thoughtfully without the intent to manipulate in favor of one’s views.