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?
In short, I do agree with Virchow. I believe that physicians and scientists have a duty that goes well beyond treating their individual patients and beyond asking and answering questions of their research. Physicians and scientists see those in greatest need and are able to translate what patients need into what communities need to improve health. Physicians and scientists become the experts on illness and as such, are poised to direct resources towards interventions that will hopefully make an impact on the patient and community levels to promote change. I believe that it is not only permissible, but necessary for scientists to become advocates in the areas of their research. By definition, they are the experts in their field and are best positioned to know what is needed and where the gaps are that need to be filled. If they do not advocate for funding and change, then that issue will go unaddressed and illness untreated. In order to balance advocacy and objectivity as a scientist or a physician, the first necessary step is to ask relevant questions and to conduct rigorous research. Both advocacy and objectivity must be built on solid data from rigorously conducted research that relies on the evidence. Therefore, there should be no conflict of interest between practicing medicine or science and advocating for policy changes if the data from carefully conducted research is the basis of both.