Department of Epidemiology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 02138, United States.
Eur J Epidemiol. 2023 Dec;38(12):1213-1217. doi: 10.1007/s10654-023-01082-5. Epub 2023 Nov 25.
The Covid-19 pandemic has laid bare a tension around scientific expertise that has major implications for the effectiveness of health systems. Critical engagement with this tension, however, is largely missing from the lessons and programs consolidating in the wake of the emergency. Lacking good frameworks for discussing the tension, the vague term "public trust" has proliferated into a buzzword that stands in for more articulate discussion. The tension between experts and the public is not new, however. It is useful to look back to the 1930s, when health experts identifying as "new epidemiologists" imagined a new modern science of epidemiology that, some believed, would resolve evident failures in public cooperation. Historical analysis of different approaches to the production and use of epidemiological knowledge in these years reveals a debate about power at the heart of epidemiology, and a critical framework for discussing the tension around epidemiological expertise in public health.
新冠疫情暴露出了科学专业知识方面的一个紧张关系,这对卫生系统的有效性有重大影响。然而,在紧急情况后的经验教训和计划中,对这种紧张关系的深入探讨在很大程度上缺失了。由于缺乏讨论这种紧张关系的良好框架,模糊的术语“公众信任”已经泛滥成一个流行语,取代了更清晰的讨论。然而,专家和公众之间的这种紧张关系并不是新的。回顾 20 世纪 30 年代是很有用的,当时自称为“新流行病学家”的卫生专家设想了一种新的现代流行病学科学,一些人认为,这种科学将解决公众合作中明显的失败。对这些年中流行病学知识的产生和使用的不同方法的历史分析揭示了流行病学核心的权力争论,以及一个用于讨论公共卫生中流行病学专业知识紧张关系的关键框架。