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 agree with John Ruffin's statement. The primary justification for "[medicine] entering the political and social life" is, as Resnik and Elliott argue, that science is influenced by non-epistemic values. I believe scientists, like all people, should have a baseline commitment to "do no harm." The problem with scientists acting as advocates in the political and social spheres arises when the researcher is viewed by the public or by policy-makers as biased. This can reduce the integrity of the researcher's work. One example of a group of researchers that handle this issue well is the team at UCSF Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health's ANSIRH. At a recent conference, ANSIRH's work was highlighted for its high-impact policy-relevant research that was used as evidence in a Supreme Court hearing. The director of ANSIRH describes his method for identifying research questions similarly to the "strategic science" steps described by Brownell & Roberto. He works with lawyers and advocacy groups to identify clinical or medical systems-related research questions whose answers are hypothesized to provide evidence-based support for the advocates in their cause and for the lawyers in their legal arguments. In this understanding of advocacy and research, the functional roles of advocate and researcher are separate, but the collaboration helps the researcher answer advocacy- or policy-driven questions.