medicine – The Early Career Voice

Should you keep politics out of your career?

June 3, 2020June 3, 2020 Elizabeth Knight, PhD, DNP

Advocacy is a core function of many health professions, including nursing and medicine. So why are we socialized not to engage with politically touchy subjects at work?

Funding for much of our work in science, medicine, and education comes from the government. Sometimes it comes from corporations that make pharmaceuticals or devices. Even in democracies like the U.S., legally protected free speech does not prevent organizations from restricting their employee’s participation in political activities or certain kinds of speech while working.

The current global public health crisis is igniting fierce debates around hot-button issues of workforce safety, inequality, prejudice, disparities, and personal freedoms. As the world changes rapidly, I am hearing lots of early-career folks wondering how to balance the call to engagement on divisive topics with the need for career stability. My profession, nursing, has a long history of activism and political engagement. I also work for a large university, where political engagement can rock the boat and raise eyebrows. This is a precarious position.

Here’s the rub: public health issues are inherently political. Think of political advocacy around tobacco and vaping, and food. These are everyday public health concerns and they are steeped in politics, yet they rarely result in career-ending political feuds; this kind of politics is generally tolerated in academic institutions. However, as we are now seeing, the relationship between politics and public health is stronger with rare and catastrophic events like the COVID-19 pandemic. Those of us in science and health professions are facing the ramifications of political decisions daily, such as access to PPE supplies, access to ventilators and medications, guidance to the public about masks and distancing, and travel restrictions. We feel this impact acutely, and many of us feel compelled to voice our opinions.

Yet, we may find ourselves at risk if we speak up about an issue with political implications, either at work or in outside public forums. Voicing dissent to institutional policy, governmental policy, or anything in between can be professionally and personally damaging. In the U.S., hospitals have been ordering staff not to speak to the media and terminating those who do not comply. This behavior can have a chilling effect on others’ willingness to voice concerns about safety. As a result of these gag orders, high-level decision-making is often missing key voices and information. The case of Dr. Li Wenliang, the Chinese physician who sounded early warnings of the dangers of the novel coronavirus, was reprimanded by the Chinese government, and later died of the disease, is a tragic example of just how the stakes are. Navigating the boundaries of political and scientific speech in life-or-death situations is not something we learned in graduate school.

The relationships among scientific data, lived experience, and government messaging are complicated, but that doesn’t mean they are untouchable in a professional context. Medical journals do not universally shy away from political perspectives. The Lancet, for example, recently published an opinion piece pulling no punches in its assessment of American political leadership: Michael Marmot writes, “Apart from the mendacity, incompetence, narcissism, and disdain for expertise of the man at the top, there may be strong messages about the nature of US society and the response to the pandemic.” Not all professionals and academics are willing to voice such forceful political opinions, but this example shows that even strongly worded opinions can be embraced.

Can mixing politics and work hurt your career? Definitely. Is it possible to practice your profession apolitically? Maybe. Is that something you want to do? You have to decide.

“The views, opinions and positions expressed within this blog are those of the author(s) alone and do not represent those of the American Heart Association. The accuracy, completeness and validity of any statements made within this article are not guaranteed. We accept no liability for any errors, omissions or representations. The copyright of this content belongs to the author and any liability with regards to infringement of intellectual property rights remains with them. The Early Career Voice blog is not intended to provide medical advice or treatment. Only your healthcare provider can provide that. The American Heart Association recommends that you consult your healthcare provider regarding your personal health matters. If you think you are having a heart attack, stroke or another emergency, please call 911 immediately.”

The Importance of Maintaining the Public’s Trust in Science and Medicine

May 11, 2020May 11, 2020 Sasha Prisco, MD, PhD

Often, and especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, there is a plethora of misinformation that is spread. We have all probably seen at least one scientific publication, news article, social media post, or YouTube video that is spreading information that is not accurate. Every day, I am bombarded by conspiracy theories or unfounded scientific claims while skimming through social media. During a time when information is rapidly disseminated through the internet, it is often difficult to extinguish a lie.

Sometimes, misinformation is inadvertently spread by well-meaning individuals who have not had the time or energy to confirm or critically appraise the information shared. “Liking”, “retweeting”, and/or sharing a post from a colleague/friend/relative is facile. We have all probably “retweeted” or shared certain articles and posts that we did not completely critically assess before sharing. Sometimes dissecting truth from fallacy is difficult, especially when information is disseminated widely. Our current technological advances with the internet and social media magnify opinions, good and bad. Occasionally, one may think, if multiple people I know and/or respect are sharing certain information and the number of posts about the false information outnumber those on the truth, then the misinformation must be true.

Occasionally, misinformation about science or medicine is shared by members of our own scientific and/or medical communities, which can sometimes be more damaging to our profession. For example, more assumed credibility may be given to a scientist or healthcare provider, even if his/her expertise is not in the area that is commented on. Conspiracy theorists may continually reference these “experts” to support their arguments. Sometimes, refuting incorrect information requires massive efforts but may never eliminate the long-lasting negative effects of the misinformation. For example, Andrew Wakefield’s infamous, now retracted scientific article that was published in The Lancet and falsely claimed an association between the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine with autism is unfortunately still being referenced to support arguments against vaccinations even though multiple studies have overwhelmingly refuted the claims made in the retracted article.

With less malicious intent, some misinformation may be spread by the media or others in reference to research articles. Certain conclusions of research papers are sometimes not justified by the data presented due to inadequate sample size, biases, issues with the experimental design, etc. During a pandemic, since rapid dissemination of scientific and medical information is needed, there is frequently a tradeoff with the scientific rigor and reproducibility of the results. Since access to papers in preprint servers are available to the public, the media and public figures may tout certain research findings as truth when they have not been vetted by the peer-review process. A fellow AHA early career blogger, Dr. Allison Webel (@allisonwebelPhD), recently wrote an outstanding blog discussing the importance of the peer-review process (https://earlycareervoice.professional.heart.org/in-defense-of-peer-review/). Of note, even peer-reviewed articles are not free from research misconduct and incorrect conclusions. There are many articles retracted from high impact journals. Before the development of the internet and social media, critiques and feedback of research findings were typically only discussed at scientific meetings or at other selective venues (e.g., local conferences/presentations, journals typically not viewed by lay people, etc.). Now, these debates occur in the public arena with beneficial and negative aspects and frequently with nonexperts. These public debates may dilute the truth when unfounded comments are perpetuated.

What should we do about the spread of misinformation? Propaganda and false information are always going to be spread but we should try to mitigate their breadth and potential damage. On an individual level, researchers should thoroughly assess their results and determine whether their data are valid and whether the claims they make in publications are justified by the data before presenting the findings to the public. Limit overreaching conclusions. Scrutiny of results by authors and the research community is essential to the scientific process. Developments and advances in science often occur when findings are reproduced either within a specific lab/group or by other labs/groups and this is especially important to realize during a time when a deluge of single-center, small sample size papers are published about the COVID-19 pandemic. Dr. Elizabeth Knight (@TheKnightNurse), another fellow AHA early career blogger, recently calls to attention the scientific lessons learned from the current pandemic (https://earlycareervoice.professional.heart.org/evidence-whats-good-whats-good-enough-whats-dangerous-lessons-for-now-and-later/).

How do we influence other people’s opinions? Internal changes are often easier to make than changing other people’s opinions. However, we are all likely an influential source of information within our own social circles and networks. We may feel more comfortable directly communicating with people we know to correct misinformation. Altering the opinions of people who we do not personally know is more challenging. At minimum, as researchers and healthcare providers, we should not intentionally try to deceive the public. Flagrant dishonesty from researchers and/or healthcare providers may erode the public’s trust in our profession, possibly to a greater extent than a nonexpert’s comments. We all make mistakes and honest misunderstandings and misinterpretations can affect all of us. However, deliberately lying and abusing the influence of one’s position as a scientist or healthcare professional is more offensive. I do not know how best to address colleagues who blatantly mislead the public. If an individual we personally know is deceiving others, we can directly communicate with him/her about the impact of the misinformation. Depending on the extent of the damage created by an individual in our professional community who is propagating false information, should we review his/her ability to maintain as a member of our profession?

What are your thoughts on how we can preserve the public’s trust in science and medicine?

COVID-19 Pandemic: 5 lessons about the way we practice medicine

March 24, 2020March 24, 2020 Amr Barakat, MD

I know that this blog was supposed to be Part 3 of the “building an academic portfolio during medical training” series, however, it’s very difficult these days to talk about anything other than COVID-19. This pandemic that has taken the whole world by storm, and reminded us all about how fragile our whole world is! Amidst all the angst and frustration, it is important to focus on positively learning from such an unprecedented experience in our lifetime. The lessons are innumerable, yet I wanted to share with you 5 points that, in my humble opinion, were highlighted by these extraordinary circumstances:

Telehealth is no longer a luxury. Despite having the technology available for years, the health industry has been lagging behind when it comes to telehealth. It took a pandemic and thousands of lives for us to realize that most of the outpatient services we provide (and arguably some of the inpatient ones even) can safely be delivered virtually. The degree of disruption to one’s life and the time wasted outside the actual doctor’s visit, between taking time off from work, physically making it to the medical facility, parking, checking-in, and so forth, can easily be omitted by a technology that is readily available but we have been reluctant to use (or don’t have insurance approval to do so). There will always be a place for in-person visits, but at least we would have more time for patients that actually need to be seen in-person.
Many hospitalizations and tests are unnecessary. As the pandemic worsens, physicians started to be judicious with ordering tests that require moving patients around the hospital. They also started thinking twice about who needs to be in the hospital, to begin with. We are now realizing how many tests and hospitalizations can safely be avoided, and I am hoping that we will carry these revelations with us as we move past the current circumstances.
Incorporating research into clinical practice needs to be seamless. Despite major advances, the way we conduct research has not yet been optimally incorporated into our daily clinical activities. We are in desperate need to develop the necessary infrastructure that instantaneously translates patient-care input into organized data that can be used to improve the way we manage our patients. Ideally quickly enough to potentially help some of the patients who generated these data. This necessary infrastructure also extends to research regulations, which need to strike the appropriate balance between scrutiny and practicality.
In a world of “evidence-based medicine”, clinical acumen remains paramount. The sudden exposure to this COVID-19 pandemic has reminded us all that often times, as physicians, we are required to operate in evidence-free zones. As much as we need to always look for evidence behind everything we do in medicine, it is essential not to forget that taking care of patients is both a science and an art. And this is why physicians can never be replaced by computers.
Prevention is ALWAYS better than cure. With the great technological and pharmaceutical advances, we tend to develop great confidence in our ability to improve life expectancy. This is particularly true in procedural fields such as Cardiology. Then comes a sobering pandemic, to remind us that when it comes to public health, prevention always wins! Fortunately, we rarely need drastic measures such as quarantines and social distancing. But addressing smoking, obesity and blood pressure control will always have much more impact on our community than stents and ablations.

We will continue to learn from this world tragedy – lessons in medicine, philosophy and life in general. But, above all, this is a reminder of how noble and unique our healthcare profession is. Stay safe everyone!

How to Shine the Light on Hidden Figures in Science and Medicine

March 13, 2020March 13, 2020 Christa Trexler, PhD

March is Women’s History month and like last year, I wanted to find a way to use this blog as a way to highlight some amazing women scientists and cardiologists. When writing my piece last year, I had a really hard time finding enough information about trailblazing women in cardiology — which was incredibly frustrating since we all know women are a driving force in our field.

I then came to realize, although I wasn’t surprised, that this isn’t specific to our field. One of the main reasons it was hard to make a list of notable women in cardiology is that less than 20% of Wikipedia articles are about women. Even Marie Curie shared her Wikipedia biography with her husband until recently. If winning a Nobel Prize doesn’t make you worthy of your own Wikipedia page, I’m not sure what does. This bias has become an issue in part because most of Wikipedia editors are men.

So, how do we fix this? What can you do?

It turns out, the answer to these questions is actually really easy! Since anyone can become an editor on Wikipedia, you yourself can edit or write pages for notable women and other under-represented scientists/physicians. This practice has actually become a popular grassroots movement, with Women in STEM Wikipedia-edit-a-thons sprouting up all over the country — I’ve been to three in the last year!

One of the main drivers of this movement is a physicist at Imperial College London, Dr. Jess Wade, has written over 900 biographies on Wikipedia in just the last couple of years. While writing almost a thousand articles seems a bit overwhelming, you can easily edit a page you think deserves to be beefed up or create one of your own by following this beginner’s guide, which also includes information about how to run your own edit-a-thon if you know of others who are interested. Writing with friends is always more fun. The last edit-a-thon focused on creating pages for under-represented scientists that I attended was this past weekend on International Women’s Day and had a wonderful keynote address from Dr.Maryam Zaringhalam, who has been another driver of making Wikipedia a more inclusive space. In just a couple of hours at this edit-a-thon we added 5 new biographies, made over 200 edits and added over 12,000 words to Wikipedia! This was just our group — on this day, there were actually more than 12 other groups working with us virtually and collectively we added over 60,000 words to Wikipedia. You can actually catch the livestream of this event, including Dr. Zaringhalam’s phenomenal keynote here.

So this Women’s History Month, take action to make our community more inclusive by starting with the internet — it’s easy, rewarding and fun, I promise!

Why Advocacy is Critical for the Future of Cardiovascular Research & Medicine

January 10, 2019March 28, 2019 Christa Trexler, PhD

As researchers and physicians, many of us got in to our professions to push the scientific enterprise further to ultimately help others. We’ve all trained for an insane amount of years and collectively we work as a unit to uncover the intricacies of the cardiovascular system, develop therapeutics and treat patients. We traditionally think of ourselves as researchers or physicians first, but obviously we are all so much more than our jobs. We are also citizens within a really complex system that has been continually struggling to serve all of its citizens equally. It’s no secret that access to affordable health care is currently not equitable within our society. Similarly, there are also large diversity & inclusivity issues within our training institutions for both researchers and physicians.

However, something we don’t think about enough is that our intensive training and experience within these systems has also prepared us to be effective advocates for these issues. We have the opportunity to promote tangible change and some might argue it’s even our responsibility.

One of the things I really appreciate about being apart of the American Heart Association (AHA) is that this is something the organization doesn’t shy away from. During his presidential address at AHA Scientific Sessions 2018, Dr. Ivor Benjamin gave a heartfelt and determined talk about what the future of the AHA’s advocacy mission looks like. He discussed how supporting local and federal advocacy, early careers and mentoring is key to supporting the future of the AHA – but only 3% of cardiac professionals are African American men and this is something the AHA wants to help change. To help solve the diversity and inclusivity issues within the cardiac field, the AHA is expanding major undergraduate initiatives to fix the leaky pipeline. My favorite part of Dr. Benjamin’s talk was when he urged everyone at AHA18 to get involved in advocacy, not just for our field, but also for our communities. Because this is the key point: in order for our work to have meaning and to be effective, we need to ensure our communities are healthy. We also need to put value to advocacy efforts in our field – this is an essential part of our profession.

Well, this is all great, but how can you get involved? We are all insanely busy; I know adding advocacy efforts can seem daunting. Luckily for all of us, one of the focuses of the AHA for January is Advocacy. Since over 7 million Americans with cardiovascular disease are currently uninsured, advocating for the protection of the Affordable Care Act is something we can all do from our computers right now.

How can you help? (Provided by the AHA newsroom)

Tell Congress to protect Americans’ access to health care.
Add your voice: 21 million Americans could lose their health insurance coverage by 2020 if the Affordable Care Act is overturned. Tell Congress to protect Americans’ access to health care.

Looking for more ways to help on other issues?

The AHA has a great advocacy resource page for to get involved with efforts at the federal, state and community levels with issues regarding health care, tobacco prevention, and healthy lifestyles for kids.
Sign up here to become part of the AHA’s grassroots network, You’re the Cure, which is focused on advocating for heart-healthy and stroke-smart communities.
There are many great non-profits around the country focused on promoting science funding, literacy, inclusion, diversity & advocacy – finding the right one for you is key and many of them have already done the legwork by developing toolkits for you to get started in your community.
Interested in STEM outreach as a way to get involved in your community? The great Marian Wright Edelman said, “You can’t be what you can’t see.” Participating in local educational initiatives is one of the best ways to expose kids to what scientists and physicians actually look like (in addition to getting them excited about science). The STEM Ecosystem is a great way to get started; there are local chapters all over the country.

I recently watched the brilliant documentary (I highly recommend it!) about Mr. Rogers, “Won’t You Be My Neighbor”, where I was reminded of his advice many of us take comfort in during intense times.

“When I was a boy and I would see scary things in the news, my mother would say to me, “Look for the helpers. You will always find people who are helping.” – Mr. Rogers

We are the helpers. Its time we use our power to advocate for equity within our field and communities.