Historical Keynote
Addresses
SER Invited Address Stresses Creativity
Special Report By Bruce
Armstrong
“To foster creativity is the
most important challenge...” was the closing message of an invited
address given by Leon Gordis, Johns Hopkins
University Chairman of Epidemiology, at the June meeting of the
Society for Epidemiologic Research (SER). Epidemiologists, he said,
should be willing to tolerate the unorthodox and take risks with new
ideas. There was a danger, he believed, that excessive methodological
criticism would stifle creative research.
Under the title “Epidemiology in
the Next Decade: Changing Issues and Changing Responsibilities,”
Gordis presented what might have been better titled (to plagiarize a
“more elder statesman”, Archie Cochrane) “Random
Reflections on Epidemiology.” Gordis identified the following problems
or issues facing epidemiology:
Issues
• the increasing and often
selective use of epidemiological data by legislators, regulators,
lawyers, journalists and others outside the public health field
• the more frequent demands for
epidemiologists to appear as expert witnesses in court proceedings
• the comparative lack of use of
epidemiological data in policy decisions
• the role of epidemiologists in
the making of cost-benefit decisions on the regulation of health
hazards
• an increasing tendency in
epidemiology to “de-emphasize” the biological basis of epidemiological
research and to conduct research without a clear biological rationale
• the problem of building
flexibility and responsiveness into epidemiological studies so that
they can change in response to changing knowledge and needs after they
have begun
• the tendency to emphasize
“positive” studies and neglect “negative” studies
• the neglect of research into
conditions that are poorly defined as difficult to diagnose
• the parochialism of
epidemiological research with its emphasis, in North America, on
diseases that are common in North America
• a tendency in epidemiology
towards excessive criticism of methodological deficiencies
Solutions
It would be impossible in the
space of a brief report to do justice to the solutions that Gordis
offered to these problems. One example relates to the overemphasis on
“positive” results. Gordis suggested that “negative” results must be
accepted as important; the reward system for young investigators must
give clear messages that “negative” results are worthwhile and will
receive the same rewards (appointments and promotions) as “positive”
results if coming from well done studies. Journal editors should be
encouraged to view “negative” results as equal to “positive” findings,
and the SER should consider the appointment of a committee to consider
interim solutions (e.g., a special section of a journal summarizing
recent “negative” findings, a registry of “negative” studies, and the
generation of pressure on editors to accept reports without “positive”
findings).
Published July 1986
|
