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?
I completely agree. Health does not happen in a vacuum, and, as we’ve learned in this course, many of the determinants of health have social and/or political origins. As such, health care must also be rooted in the social and political space. Furthermore, a healthy society requires that those in it are healthy and in order to achieve that level of community-wide well-being, there must be an open and honest dialogue with medicine and about medicine.
Is it permissible for scientists to become advocates in the areas of their research?
Yes. Scientists usually dedicate their whole lives to developing a deep understanding of their area of research. The knowledge they possess needs to be disseminated to the public and they can work with community members and advocates to do so in a responsible and effective way. Scientists are passionate about their areas of research and are intersted in seeing positive change come about. It is important that their voices are among those advocating for change because they understand the nuances of disease and treatment and can often be excellent guides for what, where and when changes need to happen.
What steps can one take to balance advocacy with the objectivity that is considered the ideal in scientific inquiry?
Balancing advocacy with objectivity can be accomplished through transparency and communication. Scientists should not be the only advocates for a cause – they should be a part of the solution, not the entire solution. Oftentimes, there are many approaches to a problem and each individual scientist may prefer the solution that they have spent the most time researching and refining. As such, it is important that other community experts – from patient advocates, to policy makers, to community leaders – are also a part of the process. This ensures that the advocacy done by scientists will be balanced by the objectivity of those who do not have a personal stake in the research, but who care deeply about achieving a solution. In addition to this, it is important that there is transparency in research. As a community of scientists we should strive to be open and honest about our research achievements and our failures. We need to make sure that all of the work we do is seen by our fellow scientists, so that we can collectively iterate and build on our successes and learn from our failures.