As social scientists, we are trained to use objective scientific methods to collect and analyze data on social issues. We produce academic papers, give professional talks, and even occasionally produce reports for policy makers (with the expectation that others will actively apply our findings to policy issues, but rarely do we actually get in front of a social issue and become active advocates). I’ve spent the past decade conducting research on tobacco, and my way of thinking about the role of a social scientist has shifted drastically. Stan Glantz, the eminent cardiologist and one of the people at the epicenter of the our Nation's first smoke free movement in California, once advised me, “So long as the science guides the advocacy rather than the reverse, it’s perfectly acceptable for a scientist to advocate for health policies.”
Given that our tobacco research is often applied to advocate for national, state, and local tobacco control policies, we take several steps to ensure our scientific credibility. First, the people administering our surveys do not have any stake in the outcome of the surveys. To illustrate, the SSRC's Survey Research Laboratory (SRL) administers many of our surveys, and their compensation depends on the quality of their survey administration, not the outcome of the survey. Schoolteachers administer our other surveys, and, like the SRL administrators, these individuals do not have any stake in the survey findings. Second, we release all of our study findings on our website, not just the findings that support particular tobacco control policies. Third, we provide full disclosure of our research methods, as well as the source of funding for our research. By doing so, we provide people with information needed to accurately assess the merit of our research and identify any possible conflicts of interest. These measures protect our scientific integrity and ensure that we continue to let the science guide the advocacy rather than the reverse.
