Please post to the forum by 1pm on the day of class
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?
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.
Based on what I’ve learned in this class, and from my own work, I agree that scientific and medical findings transcend beyond the academic setting. This leads me to adapt the famous quote from the Spiderman movie, “with great knowledge, comes great responsibility.” For a long time, science and its contributors have had an unspoken commitment to objectivity. While this is justifyable in some cases, as we’ve evolved and become increasingly aware of our environment, it’s hard to remain blind to the moral, social, and political implications tied to research. I often find it unfair that only some members of this community choose to carry the burden of social responsibility. Although I understand the fear and concern of endangering their credibility and putting their careers at risk, it is difficult to enact change otherwise. With the dissemination of knowledge through the mass use of social media today, I’ve definitely seen a change in the objectivity that is both beneficial and harmful. The line between scientific evidence related to an issue and personal opinions has often been blurred by powerful political individuals, which in turn has generated divisiveness and mistrust among its consumers. This was paralleled in Gollust’s study on the polarization of opinions among Democrats and Republicans regarding social determinants. Now more than ever, it is imperative that inviduals (not just scientists) disclose their own value assumptions and acknowledge that other people might draw different implications from research findings. The reccommendations made by Resnik and Elliott in their article, make it possible to balance both advocacy and objectivity. Through collaborations with scholars with relevant experience and expertise can help scientists deal with the value implications of their work. Consulting with ethicists, attorneys, philosophers, or other humanists can help support and inform their claims. Collaborating with public relations officials in deciding how to communicate their research to the public would also be very helpful.
In reference to Kirsten’s and Alicia’s paper about the implications of producing race-specific drugs, I believe that perpetuating group differences based on genetics is a controversial subject in health disparities research. It positions the cause of disease on the individual rather than other important factors related to the environemnt. The narrative of race superiority is also somewhat validated, which is incredibly detrimental particulary within the medical setting. While implicit bias in the medical setting is being recognized, I think we need to go futher into how institutions have played a role in health disparities.