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?
For many scientists, advocacy is a natural segue from their research. As one delves deeper into their field, one can find that their data supports the fact that “X is helpful” or “Y is harmful.” If that fact happens to be a political issue (e.g., climate change, vaccinations, etc.), then it is almost inevitable for some scientists to feel a duty to advocate for this stance in the political arena. I think it’s certainly permissible for scientists to become advocates because they are knowledgeable experts in the field who can provide valuable insight to the public. I can also understand the viewpoint that leaning too far into the political game removes objectivity. If one becomes too subjective in their research, not only are you likely to disseminate biased information, but you will also compromise the public’s trust in the scientific community. I largely agree with Resnik et al.’s stance that researchers overall should follow ethical standards and values (“honesty, openness, fairness, accountability, and respect for human and animal subjects”) and strive for unbiased data and analysis (results should “not be deliberately biased toward any particular set of competing values” and data should not be falsified or distorted).
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.
One area of health disparities research covered in this course that was most meaningful to me was the interaction of epigenetics and environment. I currently work in a basic science lab and so my perspective is narrowed in at the moment on the direct effects of genetic mutations on oncogenesis. In our course’s session about epigenetics, I had thought it was straightforward to relate epigeneticsXenvironment interactions with social disparities, but realized through reading through my peers’ posts that this link is not analogous to mutations and oncogenesis. Social disparities and the environment people live in are not clean-cut variables that can be easily quantified and interpreted. Epigenetics could easily be used as a scapegoat to undercut the heavy role institutionalized discrimination plays in healthcare disparities. I do still believe epigenetics plays a contributing role in perpetuating disparities, but it would be more fruitful to focus research on other causes of healthcare disparities.