Game Changer | Observing Science

Now that the Super Bowl is over, American football’s attention is focused on the draft to select a group of new players. The players, trained and developed across hundreds of universities, are chosen to join those already on the roster to make what could become–is expected to become–a better team. At every draft turn, the team chooses the “best available” player who might add an important piece, looking to strengthen the team’s prospects. And, most of the time, as new players are added, teams get a bit better, play at a higher level.

In the best circumstance, science operates as a team, and it is the addition of new scientists who bring new ideas, new ways to play, that advance our understanding. Thought of in this way, science is a shared undertaking, drafting the best available players. We think of science as a team that is never perfect, never unbeatable, but always looking to improve and meet changing challenges.

Read more here.

Introducing The Turning Point | The Healthiest Goldfish

A new book, written with Michael Stein, which looks backward and forward through the lens of the COVID moment.

In 2021, the US was at a turning point. We had just lived through the acute phase of a global pandemic. During that time, the country had experienced an economic crisis, civil unrest, a deeply divisive federal election, and a technological revolution in how we live, work, and congregate. The emergence of COVID-19 vaccines allowed us, finally, to look ahead to a post-pandemic world, but what would that world be like? Would it be a return to the pre-COVID status quo, or would it be something radically new?

It was with these questions in mind that, in 2021, I partnered with my good colleague, Michael Stein, to write a series of essays reflecting on the COVID-19 pandemic. Our aim with the essays was to engage with the COVID moment through the lens of cutting-edge public health science. By exploring the pandemic’s intersection with topics like digital surveillance, vaccine distribution, big data, and the link between science and political decision-making, we tried to sketch what the moment meant while it unfolded, and what its implications might be for the future. If journalism is “the first rough draft of history”, these essays were, in a way, our effort to produce just such a draft, from the perspective of a forward-looking public health. I am delighted to announce that a book based on this series of essays has just been published by Oxford University Press. Its title is The Turning Point: Reflections on a Pandemic.

Read more here.

Can We Communicate Science Better in the Age of TikTok? | Observing Science

Not so long ago, communicating ideas to the general public required access to a newspaper with wide circulation or to a broadcast studio. Now, anyone with an internet connection can, at least theoretically, reach massive numbers of people through a variety of digital communication platforms.

Social media has exploded as a form of information exchange. Facebook had 2.4 billion users in 2019 and 79% of adults in the U.S. use social media. This is also, of course, generationally patterned. About a third of Americans under 30 now get their news from TikTok and fewer than half from television.

Read more here.

When should institutions take sides? | The Healthiest Goldfish

On determining when institutions should formally address contemporary issues.

In recent weeks, there has been much conversation about the role of institutions like universities and corporations in the public debate about issues of consequence. Questions have emerged about when institutions should take a public position on issues, or, indeed, whether they should be taking positions at all. Today’s essay is a synthesis of prior writing I have done on the subject, engaging with the role of institutions in a time of political disruption, global unrest, and social change, towards doing right by our mission in pursuit of health.

As Dean of a school of public health, I come to this from a particular perspective, informed by my work in an academic setting. However, the following thoughts could well apply to any institution as it grapples with how to engage with this moment when much is at stake and the prospects of both speaking out and not speaking out on issues of consequence can feel equally fraught.

Read more here.

Observing Science: An Introduction | Observing Science

On the workings of science, its limitations, and its promise for a healthier world

Science is our demand that things make sense. We think of science as a modern discipline, systematic and skeptical in its approach and aiming at well-defined results and conceptual clarity. The data that inform science are argued about and interpreted in lecture halls and seminar rooms. Science is written down, following particular approaches, so that it can be replicable.

Much of science is done to prove or disprove ideas and test theories, but its discoveries—observations and evidence—are meant to be useful, although sometimes the uses are far-off. Science has always been a way to know nature, or in the biomedical and population health sciences, our subjects here, the contexts and forces that create the health of humans.

Read more here.

Some thoughts on free speech | The Healthiest Goldfish

On balancing a commitment to free expression with the values of civility, inclusivity, and respect for all.

Few subjects are as fundamental to our society as our engagement with speech. It concerns nothing less than the expression of the ideas that are at the heart of all we do. In recent weeks, there has been much conversation about, well, conversation—about the exchange of ideas in the public debate. Emotionally charged subjects like the Israel-Hamas war and the daily drama of politics in the US and globally have raised perennial questions about how we should conduct ourselves in the central debates of the moment. We are in a time when we continually face questions like: how can we have conversations that are inclusive and respectful, while honoring our commitment to free speech? What limits, if any, should we place on expression? How can we speak in ways that are true to all our values, not just some?

Read more here

Towards a new radicalism | The Healthiest Goldfish

On striking a balance between engaging with upstream and downstream forces, to create a fundamentally healthier world.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines “radical” as

“of change or action: going to the root or origin; touching upon or affecting what is essential and fundamental; thorough, far-reaching.”

This definition aligns well with the work of public health. We are centrally concerned with “going to the root or origin”,  with “what is essential and fundamental.” We pursue our work with the understanding that the creation of a healthier world is, by definition, engagement with the foundational drivers of health. This is reflected in a metaphor I have long used to explain the work of public health. It is that of standing on the bank of a river, seeing people falling in and pulling them out one by one before realizing that the more fruitful action is to address what is throwing them in the river in the first place. This metaphor serves well for explaining what we do to those who are new to public health and has an important place in illustrating the philosophical underpinnings of our work. It reflects the necessity of dealing with the root causes of poor health, the structural forces that decide whether we are healthy throughout our lives.

Read more here

Balancing our moral and empiric imperatives | The Healthiest Goldfish

Revisiting the importance of drawing a line between our values and our data.

Happy new year everyone. I am starting the year leaning into hope, even as challenges globally and domestically swirl. We shall reflect on those during the year I am sure.

Meanwhile, I wanted to start the year with a reflection on values, and how those who think about health can balance moral and empiric inputs. This seems particularly germane given some of the recent swirl in the public conversation that has been pushing the idea that somehow academic work should exist in a moral vacuum, and that values do not, or should not inform the work of idea generation. 

Read more here.