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 agree. As a scientist, one is charged to from the most basic level understand their craft. To apply to my field, my goal as a first-year fellow is to challenge myself to understand the foundation of reproductive physiology. Throughout this process, one is expected to critically analyze data within the field to derive further questions for future inquiry. However, as we evolve from learner to expert, a different task is expected of us. As an expert, one is charged to impart their knowledge to propel the field forward. One can only do so if they remain engaged in the community and understand the implications behind their work. The fascination that exists within science is not just the ability to diagnose someone, to study and problem, or even to understand a pathway. Especially within medicine, the fundamental purpose is to translate scientific findings into clinical practice which is often shaped by both social and political contexts. As a scientist, particularly within medicine, one must be equipped to advocate for change based on one’s area of expertise.
To balance advocacy with objectivity, it is important to remain transparent. While hypotheses are important to guide meaningful research, it is important to report all findings, even those that do not fit with ones initial hypothesis. Sometimes, the findings that are contrary to expectations generate new questions and create different hypotheses that are supported by research.
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.
The largest controversy for health disparities research that I’ve become more aware of is the preponderance of data reflecting on race as an etiology of varied health disparities. By neglecting to explain the sociocultural dilemmas seen within different communities that lead to varied likelihoods for different exposures and treatments, we almost use race as an excuse for disparities that are seen as one cannot change his or her ethnicity. With time, I hope we continue to analyze the societal factors that lead to ethnic disparities seen.