From the Epidemiology Monitor.
No questions, but I welcome your comments.
Just being calculators makes the role of epidemiologist redundant in the context where there is no implementation. I always ask myself if it is not going to effect change then what is the point?. We definitely have to see through our calculations to implementation!! I believe our role should extend to implementation
No matter what an epidemiologists' philosophical view is on the neutrality of their science, it is inescapable that their research is produced and used in a non-neutral world. Simply producing "objective", "dispassionate" scientific research only guarantees its use by the rich and powerful to maintain their power. For example, most scientists are not actively building systems of neocolonialism, but the fact that neocolonialism shapes our institutions is a reality. Therefore scientists who work in those systems can either engage in decolonial practice or not, but if they don't then they are implicitly accepting the perpetuation of those systems.
Thank you Sujit - interesting articles.
I don't really understand the dichotomy. Surely epidemiologists sometimes want to argue a policy point and sometimes want to attempt to be as objective as possible? It is important to be clear about what one is trying to do. Savitz is right that it is almost impossible to be objective and honest, even with oneself, never mind if one is trying to get an article into a journal, but it is still a noble goal. Conversely policies are needed and epidemiologists are very well placed to advise on them, so it would be a great loss if they did not. So I'm in favour of both!
I don't really understand the dichotomy. Surely epidemiologists sometimes want to argue a policy point and sometimes want to attempt to be as objective as possible? It is important to be clear about what one is trying to do. Savitz is right that it is almost impossible to be objective and honest, even with oneself, never mind if one is trying to get an article into a journal, but it is still a noble goal. Conversely policies are needed and epidemiologists are very well placed to advise on them, so it would be a great loss if they did not. So I'm in favour of both!