Search

Background: As an observational science, epidemiology is regarded by some researchers as inherently flawed and open to false results. In a recent paper, Boffetta et al. [Boffetta P, McLaughlin JK, LaVecchia C, Tarone RE, Lipworth L, Blot WJ. False-positive results in cancer epidemiology: a plea for epistemological modesty. J Natl Cancer Inst 100:988-995 (2008)] argued that "epidemiology is particularly prone to the generation of false-positive results." They also said "the tendency to emphasize and over-interpret what appear to be new findings is commonplace, perhaps in part because of a belief that the findings provide information that may ultimately improve public health" and that "this tendency to hype new findings increases the likelihood of downplaying inconsistencies within the data or any lack of concordance with other sources of evidence." The authors supported these serious charges against epidemiology and epidemiologists with few examples. Although we acknowledge that false positives do occur, we view the position of Boffetta and colleagues on false positives as unbalanced and potentially harmful to public health., Objective: We aim to provide a more balanced evaluation of epidemiology and its contribution to public health discourse., Discussion: Boffetta and colleagues ignore the fact that false negatives may arise from the very processes that they tout as generating false-positive results. We further disagree with their proposition that false-positive results from a single study will lead to faulty decision making in matters of public health importance. In practice, such public health evaluations are based on all the data available from all relevant disciplines and never to our knowledge on a single study., Conclusions: The lack of balance by Boffetta and colleagues in their evaluation of the impact of false-positive findings on epidemiology, the charge that "methodological vigilance is often absent" in epidemiologists' interpretation of their own results, and the false characterization of how epidemiologic findings are used in societal decision making all undermine a major source of information regarding disease risks. We reaffirm the importance of epidemiologic evidence as a critical component of the foundation of public health protection.

BackgroundRecently, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Programme for the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans has been criticized for several of its evaluations, and also for the approach used to perform these evaluations. Some critics have claimed that failures of IARC Working Groups to recognize study weaknesses and biases of Working Group members have led to inappropriate classification of a number of agents as carcinogenic to humans.ObjectivesThe authors of this Commentary are scientists from various disciplines relevant to the identification and hazard evaluation of human carcinogens. We examined criticisms of the IARC classification process to determine the validity of these concerns. Here, we present the results of that examination, review the history of IARC evaluations, and describe how the IARC evaluations are performed.DiscussionWe concluded that these recent criticisms are unconvincing. The procedures employed by IARC to assemble Working Groups of scientists from the various disciplines and the techniques followed to review the literature and perform hazard assessment of various agents provide a balanced evaluation and an appropriate indication of the weight of the evidence. Some disagreement by individual scientists to some evaluations is not evidence of process failure. The review process has been modified over time and will undoubtedly be altered in the future to improve the process. Any process can in theory be improved, and we would support continued review and improvement of the IARC processes. This does not mean, however, that the current procedures are flawed.ConclusionsThe IARC Monographs have made, and continue to make, major contributions to the scientific underpinning for societal actions to improve the public's health.

Progress toward a more sustainable society is usually described in a "knowledge-first" framework, where science characterizes a problem in terms of its causes and mechanisms as a basis for subsequent action. Here we present a different approach—A Sustainability Solutions Agenda (SSA)—which seeks from the outset to identify the possible pathways to solutions. SSA focuses on uncovering paths to sustainability by improving current technological practice, and applying existing knowledge to identify and evaluate technological alternatives. SSA allows people and organizations to transition toward greater sustainability without sacrificing essential technological functions, and therefore does not threaten the interests that depend on those functions. Whereas knowledge-first approaches view scientific information as sufficient to convince people to take the right actions, even if those actions are perceived as against their immediate interests, SSA allows values to evolve toward greater attention to sustainability as a result of the positive experience of solving a problem. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A society's health status is not simply the sum of the health of individuals, but an emergent property. While epidemiology has evolved from the study of simple epidemics to the study of the determinants of population health, it is still appropriate to consider the population as the epidemiologist's patient. At the same time, the population is also our study subject-we study populations to identify ways to prevent disease in populations. This article illustrates some of the implications for the prevention of disease that result from treating society as our patient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Precaution is relevant to public health, because it can help to prevent unintended consequences of well-intentioned public health interventions by ensuring a more thorough assessment of the problems and proposed solutions. It can also be a positive force for change. Three aspects are stressed: promoting the search for safer technologies, encouraging greater democracy and openness in public health policy, and stimulating reevaluation of the methods of public health science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the issues that revolve around the significance of public health towards the accidental release of methyl isocyanate gas from Union Carbide pesticide plant that has resulted to mass casualties in Bhopal, India. The disaster was triggered by various reasons such as failure of standard operating practices and engineering, lack of communication and surveillance, and policies and requirements by the Indian government. The incident has posed concern on industrial setting particularly health aspect of plant workers in third world countries who are exposed to hazardous substance and technologies.