After I received my epidemiology and biostatistics masters degree, a fierce-looking senior professor of medicine and attending physician at the medical school where I was interviewing asked me to define “epidemiology.” Flustered and caught off-guard, I stuttered an answer, to which he responded, semi-smiling, with the most succinct and complete definition I had heard up to that time. It has stuck with me ever since: “Epidemiology is the study of diseases (and disease-related conditions) with regards to person, place and time.” 

Despite my perceptions that I had blown the interview by not showing off my recent training to the fullest, I was admitted to medical school. And that “fierce” professor turned out to be a kind and caring person interested in what his students knew and would do to prevent diseases and treat the ill.  I realized more than ever during this training that epidemiology was at the heart of population medicine, providing objective evidence overlooked when clinicians only rely on clinical case-by-case experiences, and that the separation of epidemiology (and public health) from the clinical sciences was an artificial, relatively recent phenomenon. 

Nonetheless, last year, NIH failed to acknowledge the importance of epidemiologic perspectives when appointing the task force for external review of NIH peer review processes. This action concerned the over 14 epidemiologic societies represented in the Congress of Epidemiology 2006 (and now 2010) Joint Policy Committee, in which APHA Epidemiology Section leadership plays an active role.  The Congress JPC wrote NIH leadership about those concerns.

In their letter back, NIH characterized epidemiology as just “one of the specialties” rather than as a core tool for understanding clinical findings in larger population contexts.  NIH also did not acknowledge that epidemiology has successfully been used to translate clinical breakthroughs to appropriate populations and then to monitor both use of clinical interventions as well as the benefits and harms of such innovations—some of which may not be anticipated from tightly controlled, randomized trials of select patients.

The JPC is now exploring ways that our societies might more effectively discuss the contributions of epidemiology to research and public health practice and address how epidemiologic expertise would be helpful in NIH’s effort, something NIH has apparently overlooked.

This challenge is just one of many interesting challenges that lie ahead for our Section in the coming year. I look forward to serving as the Chair of the Epidemiology Section, and I thank all of you for your involvement in our organization and in the many worthwhile activities we take on.

Person, place and time—now and in the past— are also relevant themes for the APHA Epidemiology Leadership Team and Section activities.  This year will be an exciting one!  Now is the time for your involvement as a member! 

Dr. Jim Gaudino