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?
Yes, medicine and those who partake in the field have a social obligation to engage the political and social space. Medical/research fields are already political with some of the largest lobbying groups within the nation allowing for heavy social influence. It is the reluctance and false belief that medicine is apolitical that needs to be addressed.
Is it permissible for scientists to become advocates in the areas of their research?
Scientists advocate for their research regularly at conferences, with papers and other forms of dissemination. Thus it is permissible if scientist were to advocate for the research on a social, political stage.
What steps can one take to balance advocacy with the objectivity that is considered the ideal in scientific inquiry?
There is no true objectivity in science and adding advocacy will not change how objective scientist currently are. I believe no changes need to be made for scientists to become advocates.