"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?
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 mostly agree. I think that there need to be scientists, physicians, and epidemiologists from different fields who take on advocacy roles in their research and clinical areas, and that they should be able to freely become involved in advocacy work. I do not think that it is necessarily the duty of all researchers and clinicians to devote a significant amount of their time to advocacy (some may focus more time on education or clinical programs). However, I do believe that it is the duty of all clinicians and researchers to conduct their work with principles of justice and equity in mind, and if they choose not to advocate for policy change, that they be willing to share their knowledge with advocates in the field. Effective advocacy is achieved when the advocates are informed and passionate. It is hard to imagine who could be more informed about health and healthcare disparities more than the clinicians and researchers who encounter and study these issues. Some people who work in these fields will be passionate about effecting policy changes, and it is appropriate for these individuals to partner with other advocates to try to bring about that change. By their involvement, they can help other passionate advocates to strengthen their positions based off of their observations and scientific knowledge. It is important, though, that investigators not let their passion overtake their scientific objectivity and rigor, because our goal as researchers should be to find the truth in the questions we are asking. I think one way these scientist-advocates can avoid compromising their objectivity is to remain connected with the people affected by the problems they see. This will help emphasize that the truth is necessary because it impacts people’s lives, and will be a reminder that the truth is best found when investigators maintain objectivity. It will also help align their passion with the needs of the groups they are trying to help.
I think the area of controversy that was most interesting to me was learning about the different levels of racism and how they can interact, as explained in Dr. Jones’s story, the Gardener’s Tale. I think this is controversial because it is harder for people who are not victims of racism to recognize it than for victims. I found a video of Dr. Jones telling another story where she and her friends were eating in a restaurant after it had closed. She saw a sign on the door that said “Open,” but recognized that while she saw that side, anyone outside the restaurant instead saw, “Closed.” She illustrates that institutionalized racism in particular is like that sign. For those who are allowed to eat in the restaurant, they don’t see that the sign says “Closed” to everyone else. In my personal experience, I remember being offended the first several times I heard about White Privilege until I took the time to consider the opportunities that my Whiteness has afforded me that would not have been equally afforded to people of color. I this is important because a substantial number of people (including those in healthcare and health research) do not recognize the existent racism in our society, at least in part because they have not taken the time to consider it. I believe that most of these people would think, act, and conduct research differently if they understood this structure as Dr. Jones illustrates it.