This commentary accompanies two articles submitted to Epidemiologic Perspectives & Innovations in response to a call for papers about threats to epidemiology or epidemiologists from organized political interests. Contrary to our expectations, we received no submissions that described threats from industry or government; all were about threats from anti-tobacco activists. The two we published, by James E. Enstrom and Michael Siegel, both deal with the issue of environmental tobacco smoke. This commentary adds a third story of attacks on legitimate science by anti-tobacco activists, the author's own experience. These stories suggest a willingness of influential anti-tobacco activists, including academics, to hurt legitimate scientists and turn epidemiology into junk science in order to further their agendas. The willingness of epidemiologists to embrace such anti-scientific influences bodes ill for the field's reputation as a legitimate science.
展开▼
机译:这篇评论附有两篇提交给《流行病学观点与创新》的文章,以回应有关有组织的政治利益对流行病学或流行病学家的威胁的论文。与我们的预期相反,我们没有收到任何描述来自行业或政府的威胁的材料。所有都是关于反烟草活动家的威胁。我们由詹姆斯·E·恩斯特罗姆(James E. Enstrom)和迈克尔·西格尔(Michael Siegel)出版的两本书都涉及环境烟草烟雾问题。这则评论增加了作者反抗活动家对合法科学的攻击的第三个故事。这些故事表明,包括学者在内的有影响力的反烟草活动家愿意伤害合法科学家,并将流行病学转变为垃圾科学,以推进其议程。流行病学家愿意接受这种反科学的影响,预示着该领域作为一门合法科学的声誉将受到损害。
展开▼