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?
ANSWER: I agree with John Ruffin that 'If medicine is to fulfill her greatest task, then she must enter the political and social life…'" because medical information/advancements have their greatest impact on society when it is dispersed to the masses. At times, medical advancements can actually worsen a health disparity because only the financially well-off in society have access to that medical advancement. But when medical, political and social advocates work together to bring new medical information to an underserved community or to society at large, the benefits of that medical advancement (e.g. reduction in morbidity & mortality and improved quality of life) will be experienced by that community and by society at large (e.g. increased productivity). For example, in the 1970s the Black Panther organization launched a campaign to publicly inform and teach the African-American community in Oakland about sickle-cell anemia. A simple diagnostic test was newly available at the time, but many African-Americans were uninformed about the disease itself and/or couldn’t afford to get tested. Thus, in order to bring access to this new medical advancement, the Black Panther organization set up health fairs in the community that would inform people about the disease and offer free testing for sickle-cell anemia.
It is good for scientists (basic, translational, or clinical) to become advocates in the area of their research, however it is crucial that the social & political changes that scientists advocate for are based on objective scientific research that is collectively approved by the COMMUNITY of scientists in that field and not simply recommended by several “experts” in a field. In order to balance advocacy with objectivity several steps must be taken. First, there should be “separation of power/influence” between scientists who perform and actively publish research and scientists who act as political and social lobbyists. Second, scientific lobbyists should only advocate for policy change based on collectively approved and vetted research and not be unduly influenced to advocate based on research performed by a few individuals that is not collectively accepted as fact. Third, the research that the advocacy is based on should be transdisciplinary and should have input from various basic science and social science disciplines as well as social/community advocates and nonprofit organizations.