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?
Yes, I agree with the statement that researchers/scientist have a social responsibility to the health of the public. With the research team at the center of study design and interpretation, the objectivity of science does not hold. In the article by Resnik & Elliott (2016), the challenge of problem selection highlights the central role of research and institutional values. For this course in particular, are our research questions accounting for social determinants of health? Who benefits from our findings? These questions are critical in the study design process. This balance between advocacy and objectivity arises in the publication and interpretation of results. We discussed in the last class on measurement how data representation can highlight or downplay disparities using absolute or relative measures. While both results are objectively ‘true’, how a researcher chooses to measure or display results in publications can drastically affect interpretation. In order to maintain the balance, science cannot be produced in isolation but requires an interdisciplinary team to reflect on values, be reflexively consider biases and maintain rigor.