Skip Navigation



IJE Advance Access published online on December 17, 2008

International Journal of Epidemiology, doi:10.1093/ije/dyn266
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
38/2/403    most recent
dyn266v1
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 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 Pearce, N.
Right arrow Articles by Douwes, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Pearce, N.
Right arrow Articles by Douwes, J.
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 2008; all rights reserved.

Response: Time for species—course epidemiology?

Neil Pearce* and Jeroen Douwes

Centre for Public Health Research, Massey University Wellington Campus, Wellington, New Zealand.

* Corresponding author. E-mail: n.e.pearce@massey.ac.nz

Accepted 2 October 2008

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

There is much we agree with in the wide-ranging paper by Maziak,1 much we disagree with or find unclear, and some comments that could perhaps be best described as ‘random’. Rather than attempt to answer every point, we will discuss four particular issues.


    Is epidemiology in crisis?
 
As Maziak notes,1 the recent uncertainty surrounding the relation between hormone replacement therapy and cardiovascular disease has re-ignited debates about the value and future of epidemiology. These criticisms clearly have some validity, and there are legitimate reasons for concern about drawing strong conclusions from studies of the small risks of specific health-oriented behaviours. Usually, there are major problems of residual confounding,2,3 and behaviours and exposures are considered in isolation and ‘out of context’, so that inappropriate or even hazardous interventions can result.4 However, it is irrational to condemn a whole field of science, or to regard it as being in crisis, because of the problems with a . . . [Full Text of this Article]


    Is asthma epidemiology in crisis?
 

    Is an evolutionary perspective the answer?
 

    Where to from here?
 

    Conclusions
 

    Funding
 

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


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Int J EpidemiolHome page
W. Maziak
Author's Response: Epidemiology between astronomy and astrology
Int. J. Epidemiol., April 1, 2009; 38(2): 608 - 610.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Int J EpidemiolHome page
N. Pearce and J. Douwes
Author's Response: Epidemiology between astronomy and astrology
Int. J. Epidemiol., April 1, 2009; 38(2): 610 - 611.
[Full Text] [PDF]