Public Health as prototype of Science201
These ideas are shared by others. A great example is the textbook Health program Planning - An Educational and Ecological Approach (4th edition), by Lawrence Green and Marshall Kreuter - McGraw Hill, (c) 2005, a textbook used at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
On page 3, the authors quote Rene Dubos, in his book Mirage of health: Utopias, Progess, and Biological Change: "Modern man believes that he has achieved almost complete mastery over the natural forces which molded his evolution in the past and that he can now control his own biological destiny. But this may be an illusion. Like all other things, he is part of an immensely complex ecological system and is bound to all its components by innumerable links."
The authors then comment: "Dubos' comment rings true for those grappling with the complex health problems that dominate the contemporary landscape. Ecological approaches, however, have proven difficult to evaluate because the units of analysis do not lend themselves to the random assignment, experimental control, and manipulation characteristic of preferred scientific approaches to establishing causation. Although linear, isolatable, cause-effect model of scientific problem solving remains as the point of departure for the training of health professionals, practitioners find that the ecological perspectives insinuate themselves into their consciousness; .. They cannot ignore the contextual reality that health status is unquestionably influenced by an immensely complex ecological system. ... By definition ecological sub-systems do not operate in isolation from one another."
So, it's not really that we're using the tool wrong, but that it's the wrong tool.
Using science101 to tackle such problems is like trying to use a screwdriver to remove a bolt - one is likely to only end up frustrated and injured. The response to date by scientists has been "stupid bolt!" when the better response should be "stupid screwdriver!"
Please note the distinction - I am not recommending that the toolbox of science be thrown out, only that it be respected for its strenghs and extended to also include a nice set of ratchet driver wrenches as well. We need the "science201" version of the toolkit, that makes us all gasp and go "Wow, when did that come out?? It's great!" . That's where this blog is heading - for those who want to help with the journey, welcome aboard!
On page 3, the authors quote Rene Dubos, in his book Mirage of health: Utopias, Progess, and Biological Change: "Modern man believes that he has achieved almost complete mastery over the natural forces which molded his evolution in the past and that he can now control his own biological destiny. But this may be an illusion. Like all other things, he is part of an immensely complex ecological system and is bound to all its components by innumerable links."
The authors then comment: "Dubos' comment rings true for those grappling with the complex health problems that dominate the contemporary landscape. Ecological approaches, however, have proven difficult to evaluate because the units of analysis do not lend themselves to the random assignment, experimental control, and manipulation characteristic of preferred scientific approaches to establishing causation. Although linear, isolatable, cause-effect model of scientific problem solving remains as the point of departure for the training of health professionals, practitioners find that the ecological perspectives insinuate themselves into their consciousness; .. They cannot ignore the contextual reality that health status is unquestionably influenced by an immensely complex ecological system. ... By definition ecological sub-systems do not operate in isolation from one another."
So, it's not really that we're using the tool wrong, but that it's the wrong tool.
Using science101 to tackle such problems is like trying to use a screwdriver to remove a bolt - one is likely to only end up frustrated and injured. The response to date by scientists has been "stupid bolt!" when the better response should be "stupid screwdriver!"
Please note the distinction - I am not recommending that the toolbox of science be thrown out, only that it be respected for its strenghs and extended to also include a nice set of ratchet driver wrenches as well. We need the "science201" version of the toolkit, that makes us all gasp and go "Wow, when did that come out?? It's great!" . That's where this blog is heading - for those who want to help with the journey, welcome aboard!
posted by observer | 6:39 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home