| |
Jonathan Samet Reflects On Training In Epidemiology
[Ed. In response to
the recent publication of the article “Charting a future for
epidemiologic training” in the Annals of Epidemiology, we asked a few
of the 15 co-authors of the article to answer questions about the
topic of training. Published below are detailed comments and insights
from Jonathan Samet, Professor of Epidemiology at the
University of Southern California and a lead author who has been one
of the most thoughtful and outspoken leaders in the field about
training and how to bring about improvements.]
Samet Comments
I
am just
back from a two-day retreat with my department talking about the
future—and how to prepare for it.
|
● |
40
years have now passed since I started my training in epidemiology
at the HSPH. Of course, what we are doing now, could not have
been anticipated then. What will epidemiologists be doing 40
years from now? Most critically, we need to prepare
epidemiologists for a career that spans increasingly rapid
change—particularly for those who are primarily in research. In
my opinion, a very strong grounding in quantitative methods will
be critical.
|
|
● |
One
problem inherent to academia is the pace at which
we refresh the composition of research groups and our research
technology. We are not nimble and are challenged to keep up with
the emerging technologies and associated opportunities.
|
|
● |
Much
of what we teach is about research approaches of
the past and not the present and the future. For example, will
the concept underlying the new million-person “precision medicine”
cohort replace models of the past, particularly the various fixed
and proprietary cohorts?
|
|
● |
Our
educational enterprise is staid and we are not keeping up—but
other disciplines are with courses in “big data”, data
exploration, and prediction, for example.
|
|
● |
We
can
also do a better job of incorporating new technologies into the
classroom, in part to meet the expectations of today’s students
and to give more hands-on experience.
|
|
● |
On
the
epi/policy front, I don’t see much advance from our field
collectively—epidemiology remains highly relevant and the findings
of epidemiological research are often under attack from the “doubt
creators”—but this general area—epi/policy—is poorly addressed by
the academic enterprise. |
|
● |
One
other thought—the rise of clinical/translational research, driven
in part by the Clinical Translational Science Awards. A whole new
training realm and community has evolved, largely separate from
academic epidemiology. |
| |
|
|
|