I very much agree with this statement, having used it as a prompt in prior personal statements! As the Resnik articles states, the very selection of questions asked, priorities placed and scope of balancing risk/benefits is itself a result of social and political life. Understanding one’s place within this system is thereby critical in our pursuit of scientific objectivity. As physician-scientists, we have a role to advocate for improving the health of our patients and communities.
This raises a difficult balance for a researcher can promote their values for social justice and equality – while working to maintain scientific objectivity for public trust and transparency. While I agree with “scientists to discuss the values that may impact their reasoning instead of trying to maintain the false appearance of complete value-neutrality” I would caution that in today’s political climate – this may be used to improperly invalidate and misrepresent a researcher’s work in politics and media. Resnik encourages researchers’ to openly distinguish between research and values.’ Strategies, such as climate researchers, working to establish consensus documents to establish and separate evidence from individual advocacy activities both protects the field’s objectivity and individuals right to go beyond ‘research objectivity’ in this current environment.
As Resnik article recommends – one important step is working to disseminate critical findings, grounded on objective lens. The responsibility of an individual researcher goes beyond making one’s self available for expert testimony or consultation, working towards community advocacy, writing (ie media correspondence) and interdisciplinary collaboration (ie legal, social work, etc).