Abstract
This review article assesses the state of the science in environmental epidemiology, not by summarizing current scientific findings but rather by examining conceptual controversies in the study of how environmental factors influence human health. This approach seems necessary because environmental epidemiology presently stands at a crossroads—in fact, at a number of overlapping crossroads. The field teems with epistemologic debates concerning appropriate paradigms for framing research questions, interpreting data, and applying research findings to policy. The present review focuses on emerging controversies related to three questions: What is considered “environmental”? What counts as credible research in environmental epidemiology? And what does “applied epidemiology” mean in the context of environmental health? The goal is to organize the presently fragmented critical literature on these issues and to promote productive dialogue by identifying central themes in current conceptual debates.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call