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?
Overall, I do agree and think that it is permissible for scientists to become advocates in their areas of research. That said, like anyone else who wants to become advocates in their respective fields, one should approach issues relating to the public very responsibly. As the Resnik paper points out, problem selection can pose an ethical dilemma in and of itself. For example, I would be concerned about any scientist who uses "data" to publicly justify human rights violations. For example, Steven Pinker is a prominent psychology professor who has written very controversial works about what he sees as evidence that there may be a biological/evolutionary basis for sexual coercion (e.g. he uses examples from animal behavior that he interprets as rape). To my knowledge, he has never outright advocated for any specific public policy changes pertaining to this theory. He is more advocating for allowing of the scientific exploration of his theory, but his publicly publishing his works alone has led to arguments by some in the public that rape is biologically justifiable which illustrates the Resnik paper's other points about dilemmas related to publication and engaging society. To balance advocacy with objectivity, scientists should take extra care to explain their views in ways that are clear to laypeople including journalists, and publicly correct journalists and/or policy makers when their research is misconstrued.
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 that investigations into the nuances of health disparities among Asian subgroups should be prioritized. Many health disparities studies fail to include participants of Asian descent at all, and when they do, analysis of Asian ethnic subgroups (e.g. Vietnamese, Filipino, Korean, immigrant vs. U.S.-born, etc.) are often not conducted at all. There is a massive amount of heterogeneity among patients of Asian descent, from genetics to cultural beliefs, diet, lifestyle habits, trends in socioeconomic status, educational levels, languages spoken--the list goes on. Combined with the pervasive societal acceptance of the false model minority stereotype, grave health disparities among Asian patients--from chronic diseases to mental health illness--go unnoticed and unaddressed.