Please post to the forum by 1pm on the day of class
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 definitely agree. This goes back to the hypothesis defended in the article by Resnik & Elliot, which is that “…science is not and should not be value-free”. Being a scientist comes with great responsibilities, and unfortunately one that tends to be overlooked is social responsibility.
During my undergraduate training, I found it alarming that grant organizations/institutions such as the NIH have just recently incorporated multiple questions regarding the research’s potential public impact in grant proposals. This is quite unsettling because it shines light on where such institutions stand when it comes to evidence affecting policy. It is also unfortunate that it is difficult for such research to get funding compared to basic science research. The aforementioned points raise an important question: what is ultimate goal of these funding/grant organizations? Or, what are they hoping their funds would achieve in the long run? In my opinion, research should extend way beyond bench to bookshelf because it has the potential to instigate much needed change in our society.
Is it permissible for scientists to become advocates in the areas of their research?
They absolutely can, however it is challenging, hence problems like the scientist-practitioner gap. Just because it is very challenging due to some sort of resilience does not mean that scientists should not be advocates. I believe every scientist should be an advocate because collectively change can be achieved. There are many steps one can take to balance advocacy with the objectivity that is considered ideal in scientific inquiry. For example, planning and designing studies with the goal to identify mechanisms of change that can affect policy and bring about positive change. Furthermore, training is a crucial step in shaping young scientists’ mindsets about evidence and policy. I believe the responses of the students in this class attests to the effect of training and education. Education is such a powerful tool to reach multiple people because the more the educated scientists, the more advocates we get and the stronger the chances are to adhere to our social responsibility. Other steps include disseminating research in platforms or mediums that are accessible to more than just the typical readers (i.e., academics in the field).