Dalhousie University, 1234 Le Marchant Street, Halifax, NS B3H 3P7.
Can J Public Health. 2011 Jan-Feb;102(1):4-6. doi: 10.1007/BF03404869.
The author takes the position that both epidemiology and bioethics, as practiced within academic establishments, have largely although not entirely abstracted the public context of health and well-being from their respective disciplines. It is argued that by and large both disciplines have been highly successful at what they do. However, this success can in part be attributed to each limiting its ability to look beyond its respective academic niche and thus embrace challenges which are socially challenging, politically charged, and academically messy. This narrow focus has become self-serving and ultimately detracts from fundamental remits of both disciplines in protecting the public from harm. Furthermore, it may re-enforce the inequalities of research into health overall, whereby the greatest concentration of effort remains firmly focused upon those who already have the most. Currently marginalized approaches to each of these disciplines - such as social epidemiology, global bioethics, and critical bioethics - provide us with platforms that challenge mainstream academic epidemiologists and bioethicists to seek out and reconnect their expertise with questions that are more relevant to real-world situations.
作者认为，尽管学术机构中的流行病学和生物伦理学在很大程度上（尽管并非完全）将健康和福祉的公共背景从各自的学科中抽象出来，但它们在很大程度上都取得了成功。然而，这种成功在一定程度上可以归因于这两个学科都限制了自己超越各自学术领域的能力，从而无法应对具有社会挑战性、政治敏感性和学术复杂性的挑战。这种狭隘的关注点变得自私自利，最终削弱了这两个学科保护公众免受伤害的基本职责。此外，它可能会加剧健康研究的不平等，因为最大的努力仍然集中在那些已经拥有最多资源的人身上。目前，这些学科的边缘化方法——如社会流行病学、全球生物伦理学和批判生物伦理学——为我们提供了平台，挑战主流的学术流行病学家和生物伦理学家，让他们寻找并重新将自己的专业知识与更能反映现实世界情况的问题联系起来。
