I do agree with this statement. I believe that physicians and scientists have a unique perspective on health and health outcomes and that they can be advocate for their patients in political and social life. I do believe that it is not just the responsibility of the scientists but also the clinicians caring for the “common people” that have an obligation to continually assess the care that is being provided and then report back issues that need to be improved. For example, in the state of California, CCS provides (and mandates) high-risk infant follow-up for premature infants or those with complex medical conditions (CHD). This is a way to provide developmental screening to provide early intervention and improve long term outcomes in these children. This policy came about from scientists and clinicians studying and caring for these neonates and infants.
Despite the obligation to be advocates as a clinician or scientist, it is also important to remember our limitations as health care researchers. Conducting any type of rigorous research (clinical or basic science) is a privilege. Scientists choose their field of interest, disease to study, subjects to study and their primary outcome. Thus, although study design is often objective, their remains an overall subjectivity to research in general. As long as scientists and researchers are clear about this when reporting their findings (i.e. clear about the generalizability of their findings), then I believe it is safe to advocate.