IJE Advance Access originally published online on January 15, 2009
International Journal of Epidemiology 2009 38(3):678-679; doi:10.1093/ije/dyn362
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Epidemiological Association © The Author 2009; all rights reserved.
Authors' Response
A further plea for adherence to the principles underlying science in general and the epidemiologic enterprise in particular
1 International Agency for Research on Cancer, 69008 Lyon, France.
2 International Epidemiology Institute, Rockville, MD 20850, USA.
3 Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN 37232-6838, USA.
4 Laboratory of Epidemiology, Mario Negri Institute and Institute of Medical Statistics and Biometry, University of Milan, 20156 Milan, Italy.
* Corresponding author. Genetics and Epidemiology Cluster, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 150 cours Albert Thomas, 69008 Lyon, France. E-mail: boffetta@iarc.fr
Accepted 8 December 2008
| The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below. |
In a recent Commentary in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, we argued that false positive findings are common in epidemiologic studies of environmental and occupational determinants of cancer and that, given the non-experimental nature of epidemiologic research, this should come as no surprise.1 We presented several examples of likely false positives and called for, among other things, increased epistemological modesty in the reporting and interpretation of study findings, particularly when they are new, with little supporting biologic rationale, and arise from a plethora of comparisons.
Vineis, in an article in this issue of the journal,2 has misconstrued