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 agree as health doesn’t happen in a vacuum. As discussed in this class, health and the research landscape is greatly influenced by the social and political environment. For me, caring about health means trying to address these factors as well, and the best way to address them is through advocacy. Objective research is needed to advance health, and I think of advocacy as what brings research from the journal into reality. For example, the effects of lead poisoning on children or smoking on lung cancer were determined by objective research. These discoveries have had huge impacts on health, but the impacts would have been minimal without advocacy. Advocacy in addition is what brings objective research attention to the heath questions of the non-rich and non-powerful.