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 definitely agree with this statement. By politicizing the health issue at hand, we broaden the factors and variables which influence an individual's health outcomes and the way they take care of themselves. I believe it is permissible for scientists to become advocates in the areas of their research because their ideas and evidence have the ability to influence others to also advocate for the same causes and issues. Scientists choose to work in areas which they are passionate about, and their work is reflective of their own personal values and principles. Researchers hold the responsibility to ask questions, research hypotheses utilizing the scientific method, and communicate the results of disparities research implementations to the communities it impacts. Patients and communities have right to understand their disease through a holistic perspective and a catered understanding of their world when diagnosed or provided treatment options.