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 do agree with Ruffin. It is a widely accepted notion that all scientific findings should be “objective”. This stems from the idea that objectivity equals lack of bias, and that the “truth” is inherently free of bias. However, I believe it is important to make the distinction between objectivity of the finding and objectivity of the chosen topic of research. As we’ve thoroughly examined in this class, social and economical opportunities have been and continue to be decisive factors in health care and health disparities. As such it is nonsensical to assume that areas of health care research should be free of socio-political influences, for this would not only be useless but also be in denial of the social determinants of health paradigm. Therefore scientific rigor and quality need not be sacrificed, as advocacy must come into play when selecting topics of research, not producing the findings.
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 believe the most controversial area of health disparities involves disparities that occur as a result of implicit biases of healthcare providers. This is likely due to the fact that such disparities, or rather the cause of such disparities, are much more difficult to admit. We can’t blame them on “the system” as easily. Moreover these are often more difficult to measure, partly because healthcare providers can be unwilling to engage in such research, but also because implicit biases are inherently difficult to capture and must thus rely on qualitative measures or social psychology theories.