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 think this is a fascinating question. Overall I do agree that it is permissible for scientists to become advocates. Science tells us clearly that there is no such thing as truly objective or unbiased scientific inquiry—we all have our implicit biases that will inform our approach to scientific inquiry whether or not we are aware of them. Therefore, I think the responsible scientist must come to terms with and have appropriate awareness and ownership of one’s biases and how these will impact one’s research. I also think the responsible scientist will clearly delineate when they are reporting objective results of their research and when they are functioning more as an advocate. In terms of steps to balance I think one of the most important pieces is simply to be transparent at all levels. Also, mentorship can help around this balance.