I agree with this sentiment and would even take it one step further to say that scientists have an obligation to advocate on behalf of their patients both politically and socially! Most medical research projects begin with a question that is often patient-centered, however sometime between formulating this question into a format that will receive funding, collecting and analyzing the data and writing up the results for publication, the patient-centeredness that was the initial impetus for research is lost. Many important research findings with real-life implications become sound bites in the news and forgotten a few weeks later. In my own area of interest, there was a recent large population study that indicated a rising incidence of colorectal cancer among those 20 years and older with a decreasing incidence in those over 70 years old. The current guidelines recommend screening for adults 50-75 and under the ACA, screening colonoscopies are covered for those 50-75 years old but not for those who are younger. This research suggests that there is a large population susceptible to colorectal cancer without typical symptoms that we may be missing per our current guidelines and while it may be cost-effective to screen an even younger that 50-year-old population, without policy to back this up, patients may end up with high out of pocket costs. While I am not suggesting that the guidelines change based on this study, I would hope that these results and these investigators would become part of policy conversations around colorectal cancer screening in younger populations. I believe it is permissible for scientists to become advocate in their areas of research, after all they are experts in these areas. Advocacy and objectivity can be achieved if research is conducted ethically and with scientific rigor, but ultimately if the goal is to improve the human condition, objectivity may not be the most important factor.