Authors’ response

Ezra Susser and Mervyn Susser

Columbia University, Department of Epidemiology, New York, USA.

We are heartened by the vigorous responses to our call for epidemiologists to debate the implications of September 11 and its aftermath.1 The letter from Lopman and Tam2 is a good example, sharp and critical but constructive. We would underscore one of their points. More than ever, public health is a global endeavour, whereas the most powerful political structures are not; their base and interest is invariably national. As a result, even when in any particular instance public health and political objectives converge, there remains an inherent tension between the two.

To be true to the international mission of achieving ‘health for all’, our discipline must maintain a global and multilateral perspective, and cannot accept any narrowing of its focus to state-centred biodefence. Nonetheless, epidemiologists need to blend idealism with realism. While always eschewing crude opportunism, we are compelled to seek opportunities for improving public health. Our hand is strengthened when we can acquire political backing without losing sight of our distinct public health purpose.

References

1 Susser E, Susser M. The aftermath of September 11: what’s an epidemiologist to do? Int J Epidemiol 2002;31:719–21.[Free Full Text]

2 Lopman BA, Tam CC. Epidemiologists: clinging to coat-tails or donning them? Int J Epidemiol 2003;32:880–81.[Free Full Text]





This Article
Extract
FREE Full Text (PDF)
Alert me when this article is cited
Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Email this article to a friend
Similar articles in this journal
Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Similar articles in PubMed
Alert me to new issues of the journal
Add to My Personal Archive
Download to citation manager
Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Articles by Susser, E.
Articles by Susser, M.
PubMed
PubMed Citation
Articles by Susser, E.
Articles by Susser, M.