警告:反烟草激进主义可能会危害流行病学。

Carl V Phillips
{"title":"警告:反烟草激进主义可能会危害流行病学。","authors":"Carl V Phillips","doi":"10.1186/1742-5573-4-13","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":87082,"journal":{"name":"Epidemiologic perspectives & innovations : EP+I","volume":"4 ","pages":"13"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2173898/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Warning: Anti-tobacco activism may be hazardous to epidemiologic science.\",\"authors\":\"Carl V Phillips\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/1742-5573-4-13\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":87082,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Epidemiologic perspectives & innovations : EP+I\",\"volume\":\"4 \",\"pages\":\"13\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2007-10-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2173898/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Epidemiologic perspectives & innovations : EP+I\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-5573-4-13\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epidemiologic perspectives & innovations : EP+I","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-5573-4-13","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

流行病学视角与创新》杂志曾征集关于有组织的政治利益集团对流行病学或流行病学家的威胁的论文,本评论随同两篇文章提交。与我们的预期相反,我们没有收到任何关于行业或政府威胁的投稿;所有投稿都是关于反烟草活动家的威胁。我们发表的詹姆斯-恩斯特龙(James E. Enstrom)和迈克尔-西格尔(Michael Siegel)的两篇文章都涉及环境烟草烟雾问题。本评论还补充了作者亲身经历的第三个反烟草活动家攻击合法科学的故事。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的科学家,把流行病学变成垃圾科学,以推进他们的议程。流行病学家愿意接受这种反科学的影响,这对该领域作为一门合法科学的声誉来说是个坏兆头。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Warning: Anti-tobacco activism may be hazardous to epidemiologic science.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Extending the sufficient component cause model to describe the Stable Unit Treatment Value Assumption (SUTVA). Use of the integrated health interview series: trends in medical provider utilization (1972-2008). Social network analysis and agent-based modeling in social epidemiology. The use of complete-case and multiple imputation-based analyses in molecular epidemiology studies that assess interaction effects. Attributing the burden of cancer at work: three areas of concern when examining the example of shift-work.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1