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?
Yes, I agree and would go a step further to insist that medicine is inextricably linked to social and political life. Everyone’s health is influenced by social factors and policy decisions by their local elected officials. I believe all scientists and health professionals should be advocates not only in their areas of research but within the larger international social and political arena, as policies from other countries have downstream effects on our own health.
I further would like to assert that there is no true “objectivity” in scientific inquiry, as we all have our unconscious and conscious biases, which inevitably seeps into the way we do our work. For example, my work centers the voices and experiences of Black women who experience racism and adverse birth outcomes; it is obvious that my lived experience as a Black woman influences how I work and what research questions I ask. This lack of objectivity is also what affords me access in Black communities to carry out my research—I am trusted because I can relate to my research participants in a way that other researchers cannot. In my opinion, this adds richness to my work! I’m not advocating for race-concordance in all scientific inquiry, but rather that scientists take a step back and acknowledge their positionality and become more honest and forthcoming about how it influences the reasons and the ways in which they carry out research. Moreover, I’d love to see scientific inquiry move towards more research justice frameworks, which allows for advocacy and science to come together in a way that respects the communities for which we aim to advocate.
Shameless plug: my colleagues recently published a piece which I think does a good job of showing how to advocate for and incorporate the voices of those most impacted by preterm birth within a research justice framework.
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.
A couple of years ago, several prominent Black women in the area of reproductive justice came together to pen an op-ed which flatly pointed out that researchers “have no answer that Black women don’t already possess” when it comes to research about the current maternal health crisis. I believe this piece is controversial because it was very point blank about the fact that all the research in the world will only find the answers that the community you are studying already has because they are living the experience! It is my hope that going forward, when racial health disparities work is carried out, we will see more of a shift towards the inclusion and prioritization of the experiences of those who are foremost impacted by the disparities in question.