Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Epidemiological Association © The Author 2007; all rights reserved.
Commentary: Is epidemiology really dead, anyway?
A look back at Kenneth Rothman's ‘The rise and fall of epidemiology, 1950–2000 AD’
Cancer Research UK Cancer Survival Group, Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology Unit, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT.
E-mail: michel.coleman@lshtm.ac.uk
Accepted 3 July 2007
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
Rothman's inspired lament1 about the demise of epidemiology at the end of the 20th century was published in 1981, when the century still had 20 years left to run. It was a premature obituary for a science in terminal decay, written by a scientist who was already one of its leading thinkers on principles,2 on content3–5 and on methodology,6–9 and who would later publish several major textbooks. I was studying for a Master's degree in epidemiology at the time, so Rothman's article was the source of some dismay, but none of my fellow students jumped ship.
One of his gloomiest predictions turned out to be spookily accurate. But although I’m no follower of Pangloss—‘all is for the best in this best of all possible worlds’—for me, the remainder of Rothman's pessimism seems like an unwitting panegyric to the success of epidemiology since its renaissance as a scientific discipline.
 |
The pioneers |
|---|
Rothman, a
|
The limitations of observational studies |
|---|
|
Confidentiality and consent |
|---|
|
Vested interests |
|---|
|
The legacy |
|---|
|
Is epidemiology really dead, anyway? |
|---|
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?