Observational Epidemiology Posted on February 29, 2008 Bruce G. Link (bio) reveals why this unsung method should not be overlooked.

I'm a big advocate for epidemiology. And I think sometimes it gets less than the credit that it should get because it's not as good at getting the end cause, but it's very good at narrowing down the possible causes. And you usually get more sort of recognition and credit for getting the final cause or being definitive, as you can be for example in a experiment. But observational epidemiology is very useful in suggesting what might be the cause and narrowing down the number of possible causes that you can then go further to experiment with.

Observational epidemiology is when you go out to the population and you ask them questions about their exposures: Do you smoke? Do you exercise? And so on, and then try to link those to health outcomes in the future. So that can help us understand possible causes. A lot of the possible causes have been found that way. And then you get more and more convinced by subsequent research that probes more deeply. But observational epidemiology is without an experimental manipulation in it.

« Back to Article