Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Epidemiological Association © The Author 2008; all rights reserved.
Commentary: Lack of scientific influences on epidemiology
Department of Health Sciences, University of Alberta, 114 St–89 Ave, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2E1, Canada.
E-mail: carl.v.phillips@ualberta.ca
Accepted 4 September 2007
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
Unethical, anti-scientific, politically motivated attacks on health research and researchers by wealthy organized interests can be a nightmare. I know this from experience.
In ‘Corporate Influences on Epidemiology’,1 Neil Pearce recounts a bit of what it is like to have one's scientific contributions attacked because someone does not like the worldly implications of the results, and suggests that the problem is sufficiently pervasive to be a threat to epidemiology. The concerns, and especially the advice, Pearce offers seem to fit my own experience well. I have developed a thick skin, focused on the long run, and avoided imitating those who attack me by overstating or misrepresenting the evidence. I find strength in the fact that, as Pearce notes, most of the time science—not political correctness, not well-funded advocates—wins in the end.
The twist on Pearce's message in my case is that he might consider me to be on the wrong
 |
Rules and organizations will not provide a solution |
|---|
|
The need for more scientific influence in our science |
|---|
|
Can epidemiology ever be a science while in the shadow of public health? |
|---|
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  G. Davey Smith Big business, big science? Int. J. Epidemiol., February 1, 2008; 37(1): 1 - 3. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. Pearce Response: The distribution and determinants of epidemiologic research Int. J. Epidemiol., February 1, 2008; 37(1): 65 - 68. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|