Back to Annual Meeting

Back to Annual Meeting

APHA Scientific Session and Event Listing

Peter P. Moschovis, MD (c), MPH (c), Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, U. of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health, University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine, 1700 E. 56th St., #3010, Chicago, IL 60637, 773.575.4114, peterm@uchicago.edu

Public health research draws its motivation from two rich traditions, science and advocacy. The former, at least in theory, commits researchers to distancing themselves from the object of study in order to draw valid conclusions. The latter, especially in the context of human rights, leads researchers to emotionally and politically commit themselves to advancing the interests of those whom they study. In short, human rights researchers often find themselves torn between two ethical mandates – finding the truth vs. doing good for their subjects.

In this paper, I briefly sketch the philosophical underpinnings of these two streams of thought. The first, objectivism, draws on the modernist tradition, while the second is best exemplified in the postmodernist critique. After highlighting some deficiencies of each approach, I argue that a middle ground (similar to the 19th-century concept of "intersubjectivity") can best achieve the ethical mandates of scientific validity and beneficence. Using examples from my research experiences with Kurdish and Afghan refugees and in post-war Kosovo, I argue that ultimately, the good of one's research subjects (especially victims of human rights violations) is best served by an honest commitment to finding the truth in a scientifically rigorous way. It is important for researchers to openly admit their personal political allegiances while also submitting their work for critique by those with opposing views. Such a system of checks and balances allows human rights researchers to work within a particular set of commitments while maintaining the scientific integrity that characterizes good research.

Learning Objectives: At the conclusion of the session, participants will be able to

• Articulate the dilemma raised by a human rights researcher's simultaneous commitments to objectivity and advocacy.
• Outline strategies for ensuring scientific validity in research while maintaining one's personal political commitments.

Keywords: Human Rights, Research Ethics

Presenting author's disclosure statement:

Not Answered