"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?
In the pursuit of maximum benevolence, society-wide medicine requires the cooperation of the public – we have seen some of the consequences of a lack of “buy-in” in dramatic examples such as vaccine decline and loss of herd immunity, but less popularized examples are common in everyday practice. Disinformation, paranoia, and loss of trust in evidence-based medicine runs rampant in our society and can coalesce into destructive political forces. Without a clear public presence and established channels for communication of medical science, evidence-based medicine cannot compete for public faith and support. Expertise is paramount here, and scientists are best suited for providing that expert voice in their areas of research. In relaying findings and translating medical literature for a broad audience, there is no inherent conflict of interest – of course there will be lensing effects, but this can be tempered through collaborative panels and institutional dissemination.