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 agree with the statement that medicine should serve the public’s health, and to do so, medicine must enter political and social life. In research conducted to examine health disparities, we have learned through this course that these disparities can really only be understood by incorporating socioeconomic issues. Due to the history and unfortunate current climate of our country, individuals of various races/ethnicities are viewed differently, which impacts their health. Additionally, education level, income, employment, literacy, etc all affect an individual’s ability to engage in the healthcare system effectively, implement recommendations, incorporate healthy lifestyle habits, etc. The role of these factors cannot be fully appreciated if social life is not incorporated or entered. Second, after identifying the role of these factors, clinical outcomes cannot be substantially influenced without change in policies as these are systems and national issues that need to be addressed above the physician-patient relationship.
I think that scientists should become advocates in the areas of their research, and I think the article in Annals of Internal Medicine by Dr. Bibbins-Domingo is an excellent example. Advocacy can be balanced with objectivity based on timing. Objectivity is of utmost importance during study design, data collection, and analysis. When presenting research, I think it is possible to appropriately balance advocacy and objectivity. As long as data being presented have remained objective and factual, scientists can use the objective data to create an argument and advocate for additional research, policy change, etc. Scientists can act as advocates in areas of their research when not directly conducting a study. If their data ultimately do not support their hypothesis, then objectivity has to outweigh their role as an advocate.