Society for
Epidemiologic Research (SER) Presidential Addresses
SER President
Urges Greater Unity to Meet the Challenges Facing Epidemiology in the
90’s
“To lump or to split?” that is
a question facing epidemiology today, according to outgoing SER
president Jonathan Samet. He posed the question in
his presidential address at the recent SER meeting in Snowbird after
noting the growing number of new subspecialty associations in
epidemiology. Is greater fragmentation into separate groups or greater
unity in the best interest of epidemiology, asked Dr. Samet.
Yes/Yes Answer
Samet answered both questions
with a yes. He seemed to accept the need for the creation of new
groups when these subspecialists do not have adequate opportunities to
make presentations or have other interactions with colleagues at SER.
On the other hand, Dr. Samet expressed the view that without greater
efforts at unity, epidemiologists would not be optimally organized to
meet the challenges facing them in the 1990’s.
He listed some of the challenges
he sees today and expressed confidence that the number of challenges
would increase over the next decade. Some of the challenges facing the
whole of epidemiology today, according to Dr. Samet, are 1) the issues
around providing greater data access; 2) around guidelines for the
conduct of research; and 3) the perennial need to advocate for more
resources for training and research, which is not being addressed by
any group at present. SER has begun to take a more activist
orientation to these issues, he said, at least judging by the number
and mandate of the various committees that have been created over the
recent past.
Encouraging Signs
Dr. Samet pointed to some
encouraging signs that efforts at greater unity are being made in the
epidemiology community today. He noted specifically the proposal to
create a liaison committee with representatives from each of the major
epidemiology associations. He urged SER to “aggressively move forward”
to take a “broader role” in representing the interest of epidemiology
today. This is especially important because of the “increasingly
difficult world for epidemiologists in the 1990’s.”
Published July 1990
Postscript 2000
Did I offer these
comments in 1990 or 2000? My listing of challenges foretold included
data access, guidelines for the conduct of research, and “the
perennial need” for more resources for training and research. While
little skill in prophecy was needed for the last, data access became a
critical issue with the 1998 Shelby Amendment and the resulting
Circular A-110 of the Office of Management and Budget, and the conduct
of research remains a matter of discussion. Several studies figuring
prominently in policy decisions have now had independent replication
or validation of analyses.
When I made these
remarks as President of SER, I was concerned about the taciturn
response of our profession to external pressures and our failure to
proactively act through professional organizations. I had the vision
that SER would join with other organizations in taking on these and
other challenges to epidemiology. That vision has not yet been met,
although the American College of Epidemiology has stepped forward to
take on some key issues for epidemiology.
Since 1990,
epidemiologic research and training have flourished and epidemiologic
evidence has figured centrally in major policy decisions, giving
further prominence to the field and leading to questions as to the
limitations of epidemiologic evidence. We can only expect mounting
interest and scrutiny of epidemiologic data, as researchers continue
to address critical societal questions. My remarks remain as cogent
today as in 1990, but the fractious nature of the discipline and the
policy wariness of many epidemiologists has hindered my proposed
solutions to still persistent problems.
|
