Weed Douglas L, Mink Pamela J
Division of Cancer Prevention, Office of Preventive Oncology, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA.
Ann Epidemiol. 2002 Feb;12(2):67-72. doi: 10.1016/s1047-2797(01)00302-7.
Two distinct views of the roles and responsibilities of epidemiologists have emerged in a decades-long debate: one keeps professional practice constrained to science; the other adds active participation in public health policymaking. In defense of the narrower view are several claims: that epidemiologists lack expertise in policymaking; that advocating policy adversely affects scientific objectivity; that the limits of epidemiologic science work against translating results into policy; and that participation in policy can bring on personal attacks. In this study, each claim is addressed. Epidemiologists already participate fully in educational, research funding, and editorial policymaking and thereby have an experiential foundation in some of the basics of policymaking. Policymaking can enhance scientific objectivity because it requires not only the use but more importantly the improvement of empirical methods. Finally, the comforts of professional life are not the primary yardsticks of our responsibilities. Arguments in favor of active involvement in public health policymaking are presented. Epidemiologists have been mixing science and policymaking for a long time and there is a strong sense that the benefits of public stewardship outweigh the risks. The American College of Epidemiology's Ethics Guidelines support this view. Active participation in public heath policymaking will, however, require curriculum changes in graduate training programs. With additional training and a broader recognition that public health policymaking is an appropriate professional pursuit, epidemiologists can look to a bright and challenging future in the science and practice of public health.
在长达数十年的争论中,出现了两种关于流行病学家角色和职责的不同观点:一种观点将专业实践局限于科学领域;另一种观点则增加了积极参与公共卫生政策制定的内容。支持狭义观点的有以下几种说法:流行病学家缺乏政策制定方面的专业知识;倡导政策会对科学客观性产生不利影响;流行病学科学的局限性不利于将研究结果转化为政策;参与政策制定可能会带来人身攻击。在本研究中,对每种说法都进行了探讨。流行病学家已经充分参与教育、研究资金和编辑政策制定,因此在一些政策制定的基础方面有实践经验。政策制定可以提高科学客观性,因为它不仅需要运用实证方法,更重要的是改进实证方法。最后,职业生活的舒适度并非衡量我们职责的主要标准。文中提出了支持积极参与公共卫生政策制定的论据。长期以来,流行病学家一直在将科学与政策制定相结合,并且有一种强烈的意识,即公共管理的好处大于风险。美国流行病学学会的伦理准则支持这一观点。然而,积极参与公共卫生政策制定将需要研究生培训项目的课程改革。通过额外的培训以及更广泛地认识到公共卫生政策制定是一项合适的专业追求,流行病学家有望在公共卫生科学与实践中迎来光明且具有挑战性的未来。