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 agree with the notion that science must speak the language of the common people and serve the public's health. If medical research is not understandable to the average person, then the general public will distrust the medical establishment and seek out alternatives that most often can be of no value or harmful to public health. Public attitudes towards science and trust in the pharmaceutical industry is at odds with scientific discoveries and often the public only hears about news such as the autism vaccine link and not the subsequent retraction and faked results admission of the debunked findings. In many ways it seems that in recent times because science has moved so far away from the public sphere, that miracle cures, mysticism, and other forms of sensationalized quackery has become increasingly more successful. When real science does a poor job at communicating, pseudoscience quickly takes its place wherever possible. This is partly because of the ability to reach large audiences of people through the internet and social media and the current lack of social responsibility controls required to filter out fake news and products.
I appreciate what Resnik and Elliott (2016) said in their 5 recommendations to improve social responsibility in science. Specifically, the idea that scientists should collaborate more with diverse teams including lawyers, public relations specialists, and media organizations. This will lessen the distance between the public and researchers and allow for more careful dissemination of research findings that can often become distorted when travelling the wide gulf from research publication to daily news show.
It is permissible for scientists to become advocates in their area of expertise but only if they are very careful to disclose openly biases at all stages of their research. They should clearly differentiate the raw data from their derived conclusions and recommendations and explore opposing viewpoints in their discussion. Scientists should also resist the temptation to become overtly politically involved when accepting funding or appointments of prestige to avoid perception of any conflicts of interest. Lately it seems that many that public figures are flaunting their conflicts of interest such as chemical company executives becoming EPA senior officials or pharmaceutical lobbyists and researchers running the FDA, DEA, or HHS. Hopefully we can establish better constraints to these practices and maybe legislate cooling off periods or statutes that require complete monitored divestment of corporate interests.
I am optimistic that the millennial generation and younger will continue to be more inclined to support industry that has at its core profitability through social responsibility. Ethics advising, legal, and conflict of interest monitoring already is being implemented at large research institutions but there should be increased funding in this area. Industry should be encouraged to support independent ethics watchdogs and public dissemination efforts and hopefully will do so out of necessity for public image.