“If medicine is to fulfill her greatest task, then she must enter the political and social life…”
1.
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 this statement completely.
As researchers and experts in our field, we are uniquely qualified to become
advocates. Our expertise allows us to discuss
disparities issues in a coherent way with the public and lawmakers who may not
have knowledge of the issue. Additionally,
researchers are often well respected as experts in their communities which
gives their advocacy additional weight.
The essential goal of clinical research is to improve health and healthcare,
and so simply identifying problems without action is not effective. As researchers, we have a moral obligation to
participate in advocacy.
Concerns that advocacy may interfere with objectivity are valid. One way to avoid bias is for researchers to
focus on evidence-based policy change in their advocacy. Working with professional organizations (for
example, the American Academy of Pediatrics) to ensure that their advocacy is
in line with greater professional consensus.
2.
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 was particularly interested in the Moving to Opportunity study that we
covered in class and the differential effect on male and female children. It clearly illustrated how complicated
effective 4th generation research is and the need for close collaboration
with the community that is being affected.
It is possible that if social difficulty had been identified more quickly
in the boys in the study, interventions could have been enacted to improve
their outcomes.