|
| |||||||||||
|
|
A full report on the Congress of Epidemiology 2001 will appear in the July issue of The Epidemiology Monitor. Subscribe now to obtain full coverage, including scores of photos taken at the Congress.
Epidemiologists from 33
countries gathered in record breaking numbers in Toronto on June 13,
2001 for what Congress organizer Michael Bracken called the 1st
World Congress of Epidemiology and the largest gathering
ever of epidemiologists. Jack Siemiatycki, president of
the Canadian Society for Epidemiology and Biostatistics called it the
Woodstock of Epidemiology. According to Bracken, exactly 1700
epidemiologists officially registered for the Congress, and organizers
were obviously pleased their vision of unifying the profession came
true, even if only for three or four days in a beautiful lakeside city
with warm, sunny weather. Also, the gamble appeared to be paying off
as the record attendance held the promise of new revenues for the four
epidemiology organizations (ACE, APHA, CSEB, and SER ) which sponsored
the Congress. Epidemiologic Methods Plenary Most
Talked About Session At The Congress The most provocative and
talked about session at the Congress was the first plenary session on
methods in epidemiology entitled The Need To Improve Study Design,
Analysis, And Reporting In Risk Factor Epidemiology. The session
was provocative because it included criticisms of epidemiologists and
called for practitioners of epidemiology to be more explicit about the
uncertainties surrounding their findings. The first part of the two
part session included papers by Clarice Weinberg on Neglected
Designs In Epidemiology, by Sander Greenland (chair) on why Data
Say Nothing About Epidemiologic Associations, and Charles Poole
on Why Published Epidemiology Is Really Junk Science. Greenlands point
was that, contrary to popular belief, data say nothing in and of themselves.
Only data + assumptions about errors and biases yield inferences, he
said, and he urged his colleagues to get a better quantitative sense
of the uncertainty that routinely surrounds their epidemiologic findings.
Poole pointed out how statistically significant estimates are often
overestimates of true values and therefore not best estimates
as is often assumed. He warned that significant estimates might be flashes
in a pan which are fools gold, and urged epidemilogists
to preferentially report the precision rather than the statistical significance
associated with their estimates. Epidemiology Awards Given At Congress
Luncheon Multiple awards were given at the Congress
of Epidemiology, including the Abraham Lilienfeld award to
Brian MacMahon, Harvard University, and Anthony Miller, University
of Toronto, and the best student paper award to Dora Ilyasova,
University of North Carolina. Student prizes were also awarded to Unhee
Lim, Cornell Univesity, and Rui Jiang, Harvard University,
as first and second runner ups, respectively. Honorable mention was
given to Jennifer Peck, University of North Carolina, and Tien
Yin Wong, University of Wisconsin. Walter Willett accepted the prize
on behalf of Brian MacMahon and said that MacMahon developed chronic
disease epidemiology as we know it today and trained a whole generation
of epidemiologists. He credited MacMahon with developing teaching materials
which are not surpassed even up to now. Co-winner Anthony Miller was present to accept his award. He was credited with creating the Canadian Cancer Institute and developing the first National Death Index in Canada. In accepting the award, Miller expressed his gratitude for the interactions he has had over the years with colleagues at high levels of the US health establishment which enriched his program in Toronto, he said.
To stay fully in touch with epidemiology, subscribe to The Epidemiology Monitor
The Epidemiology Monitor ~ Home
|
||||||||||