Skip Navigation


IJE Advance Access originally published online on March 2, 2007
International Journal of Epidemiology 2007 36(1):20-22; doi:10.1093/ije/dyl291
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
36/1/20    most recent
dyl291v2
dyl291v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Vineis, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Vineis, P.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Epidemiological Association © The Author 2007; all rights reserved.

Commentary: First steps in molecular epidemiology: Lower et al. 1979

Paolo Vineis

Imperial College London and University of Torino.

E-mail: p.vineis@imperial.ac.uk

Accepted 1 December 2006

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

It is usually believed that the expression ‘molecular epidemiology’ was first introduced (at least for chronic diseases) in the seminal paper by Perera and Weinstein in 1982.1 It should not be forgotten, however, that the expression appeared already in the title of the paper by Lower et al. published in 1979.2 Terminology apart, the paper we submit to the attention of the readers as a historical reprint raises a number of interesting issues.


   A priori hypothesis
 
The paper is rather surprising because about half of it is taken by a long introduction on the biological premises of the work. This would probably not be accepted by the editor of an epidemiological journal today. Most papers nowadays are brief, factual and convey a simple, short, ‘take-home’ message. Also, in the era of high-throughput technologies, rather than putting forward sound hypotheses that justify the choice of particular genes or exposures for investigation, we see . . . [Full Text of this Article]


   Early examples of Mendelian randomization
 

   Gene–environment interactions without the environment?
 

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?