CitationSavitz, David A.; Poole, Charles L.; & Miller, William C. (2000). Savitz et al. Respond [to Thomas E. Stenvig's Objectivity and Advocacy Are Not Contradictory Goals]. American Journal of Public Health, 90(6), 987-8.
AbstractThe article by Savitz and et al.1 on reassessing the role of epidemiology provides a meaningful basis for an inward look by those engaged in the practice of public health in addition to epidemiologic research. Dimensions germane to this debate are the appropriate overlap and interface of public health research and practice as well as the qualifications and backgrounds of professional cadres engaged in both fields. From this perspective, I find the authors’ conceptual distinctions between objectivity in epidemiology and advocacy in public health practice somewhat arbitrary, narrow, and problematic.
Reference TypeJournal Article
Journal TitleAmerican Journal of Public Health
Author(s)Savitz, David A.
Poole, Charles L.
Miller, William C.