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 John Ruffin’s statement. As a medical student I found myself frustrated and feeling powerless at the futility I saw in my clinical rotations. So many patients and people facing the same health problems that were not their fault, but rather the faults of poor food access, limited employment opportunities, neighborhood safety, high insurance deductibles, etc. These were the areas that needed to be addressed. I initially learned about this concept of public health when trying to figure out ways to approach this problem from a broader perspective and stumbled upon the bridge analogy, but I find myself now much more attracted to the cliff analogy presented last week in the Dr. Jones reading. I think it is permissible for scientists and clinical research to also become advocates in their areas of research, because often times their patient’s do not have the ability to be advocates for themselves. This can lead to balance issues with objectivity, thus I think an even more powerful approach to advocacy would be for the clinical researcher to partner with the patients that face these health disparities and the scientist advocate together for change. Also, I think that it is okay for clinical researchers to go beyond their research to advocate in general regarding their area of expertise. For example, many researchers are looking at one specific aspect of a disease, if a gene is responsible for this etc, but this does not mean they can take a wider lens to address disparities facing the population in the area of research whether it is liver disease, chronic kidney disease, transplant etc.
Please describe an of controversy for health disparities research that you learned about in this course, or alternatively an area of research that should be prioritized in health disparities. Include why you find this area interesting or controversial.
I think hypertension, a disease as old as time, still needs to be prioritized. It is one of the largest risk factors for CVD and so many people, not just populations of color, but rural vs urban, educated vs uneducated have poor control over their blood pressure. We have the medications to address this health issue, which begs the question perhaps the medications are not the solution, but addressing factors that lead to poor adherence, or access to medications, or public understanding are issues that need addressing. We, on a whole need to do better in an effort to limit the effects of uncontrolled blood pressure is having on our society and population, especially in vulnerable populations that shoulder the most disease burden.