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 absolutely believe that scientists have an important role as advocates in their field. Scientists are not robotic conductors of experiments but have roots in real life experiences that may intersect and have even inspired their work – many physicians entered the field of medicine inspired for social or policy reasons rather than their interest in the scientific aspects of the work. Even if scientists are not stemming from an advocacy background, they may be witnessing patient experiences through their work that inspire them to become advocates.
There is valid concern that this advocacy creates a bias to scientific work. In abortion work for instance, most researchers consider themselves prochoice. This presents conflict with any results that aren’t supportive of abortion. To combat this, strong internal skepticism in the community is vitally important.
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 found the concept of epigenetics to be both interesting and frustrating. I typically reject the concept of genetic differences explaining health disparities. However, the concept that racism itself could cause DNA methylation patterns that result in health disparities is a compelling concept that I’m planning to follow.