"Is social epidemiology at risk of losing its identity as a distinct specialty?" is the question posed by Sandro Galea and Brace Link in this issue of the Journal (1). The authors think so; to paraphrase Virchow (with tongue firmly in cheek), all epidemiology is social, and society is nothing but epidemiology on a grand scale (2). The substance of the article by Galea and Link serves to provide a roadmap to help social epidemiologists who are also beginning to study social causes orient their future paths and avoid getting lost in the thicket of other branches of the discipline-for example, cardiovascular epidemiology. A few of the new directions prescribed by Galea and Link are not particularly unique to social epidemiology. For instance, a cardiovascular epidemiologist's wish list for her or his discipline would almost certainly include: 1) methodological innovation, 2) a better understanding of mechanisms, and 3) translation of evidence into effective interventions. On the other hand, Galea and Link draw out 3 things that do make social epidemiology rather distinct: 1) the central role of health inequalities, 2) the focus on macro-level influences on health, and 3) the grounding in social science theory.
展开▼
