Should Scientists Engage in Activism?

The debate over whether scientists should engage in activism has gained prominence, especially with the rise of global challenges such as climate change, health crises, and social inequities. Some argue that scientists should remain impartial, focusing purely on research, while others assert they have a moral responsibility to advocate for evidence-based policies. In this article, I will argue in favor of scientists embracing activism by examining the HIV/AIDS epidemic, Rwanda’s achievements in healthcare, and the broader responsibilities scientists have in shaping societal outcomes. By blending research with activism, scientists can create meaningful and long-lasting changes.

Science and Activism: A Historical Perspective

Historically, scientists have been pivotal in addressing societal issues by combining research with advocacy. One of the most significant examples is the HIV/AIDS epidemic, where scientific activism was instrumental in transforming public health policy and treatment. In the 1980s and 1990s, scientists worked hand-in-hand with activist organizations like the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT UP) in the U.S. and The AIDS Support Organization (TASO) in Uganda. These groups collaborated to raise awareness, break stigma, and push for policies that made life-saving treatments like antiretroviral therapy (ART) more accessible.

Without this collaboration, it’s likely that the rapid development and dissemination of ART would have been delayed, leading to more lives lost. Scientists didn’t just discover treatments; they advocated for equitable access and fought against the discrimination faced by marginalized communities, such as LGBTQ+ individuals and those living in poverty. The case of HIV/AIDS demonstrates that activism is not just about advocating for a cause—it’s about ensuring that scientific advancements are implemented in ways that benefit society as a whole.

Bridging Science and Public Health: The Case of Rwanda

The link between scientific research and activism is also evident in Rwanda's healthcare achievements. Dr. Kagabaa, a Rwandan physician and the founder of the Health Development Initiative (HDI), led efforts to reform Rwanda’s abortion laws. Before the amendments, access to safe abortion was limited, leading to high rates of maternal mortality associated with unsafe procedures. Drawing on scientific evidence, Dr. Kagaba and his organization advocated for legal reforms that provided access to safe abortion services, resulting in a significant reduction in maternal deaths.

Rwanda’s success in public health extends beyond abortion rights. The country also achieved the ambitious "90-90-90" targets set by the United Nations to combat HIV. By 2019, 83.8% of Rwandans living with HIV knew their status, 97.5% of those diagnosed were receiving treatment, and 90.1% of those on treatment had achieved viral suppression. This success was not solely due to scientific advancements but also to strong partnerships between scientists, healthcare workers, policymakers, and communities. The collaborative efforts ensured that scientific knowledge was translated into effective health policies that reached those who most needed them.

The Case for Activism in Global Health Crises

The role of scientists in global health activism extends to more recent crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Scientists developed vaccines in record time and played a crucial role in advocating for equitable vaccine distribution. Initiatives like COVAX, a global mechanism to promote equal access to vaccines, were driven by scientific evidence and advocacy against “vaccine nationalism,” where wealthier nations secured large quantities of vaccines. At the same time, poorer countries struggled to access them.

The voices of scientists were vital in ensuring that the global response to COVID-19 was not solely driven by political interests but by the ethical imperative to save lives. However, this does not come without risks. There were instances during the pandemic when scientific advice was distorted to fit political narratives, leading to confusion and mistrust among the public. This highlights the delicate balance scientists must maintain when engaging in activism, as they must ensure that their advocacy is always rooted in objective, evidence-based research to maintain credibility and public trust.

The Risks of Inaction

Some argue that scientists should avoid activism to preserve their objectivity and avoid being perceived as part of a political interest group. They claim that scientists risk undermining the social contract that provides funding and support for basic research by becoming activists. Additionally, there are concerns that political involvement could lead to research bias, where findings are manipulated to fit a particular agenda, as seen in the example of distorted scientific advice during the COVID-19 pandemic (Aschner, 2020).

However, the risks of inaction can be far more detrimental. When scientists remain silent on issues like climate change, pandemics, or health inequities, they fail to use their knowledge for the greater good. Silence can be interpreted as complacency, allowing misinformation and harmful policies to prevail. In many cases, the lack of scientific input in policymaking can lead to poor decisions that exacerbate crises, as with climate change denial in the early 2000s.

The Moral Responsibility of Scientists

Science does not exist in a vacuum. It is a human endeavor deeply intertwined with social, economic, and political realities. By engaging in activism, scientists can apply their research to solve real-world problems. As members of society, scientists are not immune to their work's moral and ethical implications. In fact, they have a unique responsibility to advocate for change, particularly when their research has the potential to improve health outcomes, reduce inequality, or protect the environment.

A quote by 19th-century physician and scientist Rudolf Virchow underscores this responsibility: "Physicians are natural attorneys of the poor, and social problems should largely be solved by them." This statement highlights that scientists, particularly those in public health, must use their knowledge and skills to advocate for social justice. Virchow's perspective is still relevant today, as the interconnectedness of social, political, and scientific issues makes it imperative for scientists to participate in societal change actively.

Conclusion

Scientists should embrace activism to bridge the gap between science and politics. The HIV/AIDS crisis, Rwanda’s healthcare reforms, and the COVID-19 pandemic all demonstrate that scientific activism can lead to life-saving policy changes. While there are valid concerns about the potential for bias and the loss of objectivity, the risks of inaction—allowing misinformation and harmful policies to thrive—are far greater. Scientists have a moral responsibility to ensure that their research benefits society and activism is a powerful tool for achieving that goal. Through advocacy, scientists can discover new knowledge and help create a more just and equitable world.