Two contributions to this issue of the Journal make strong cases for the value of science in advancing public health, indeed, for scientific research being something like the “best friend forever” of enlightened public health policy. In “Science as an Early Driver of Policy: Child Labor Reform in the Early Progressive Era, 1870–1900” (page 1862–1871), Perera argues that in the late 19th century growing scientific research into children’s biological and emotional vulnerabilities to specific environmental risks proved to be the critical factor in finally achieving long-sought protective legislation such as New York State’s Child Labor Law of 1886. That political campaign had first been based on moral and social considerations, but science clinched the argument and helped assure the desired legislative outcome. In “On Agent Orange in Vietnam” (page 1860–1861), Clapp et al. highlight a 1995 Journal editorial that brilliantly synthesized accumulated scientific evidence to show, as the authors put it,
the impact of this toxic defoliant on the workers who manufactured it, the US military personnel who were exposed to it, and the Vietnamese population who had continuing exposure during and after the American War in Vietnam.
The authors point out that such scientific evidence was instrumental, after a bitter struggle, in finally achieving for US Vietnam veterans long-sought compensation for the health consequences they suffered because of exposure to Agent Orange.
These two examples, based on events occurring roughly a century apart, seem to show just how good a friend science has been to public health policy. But three other contributions in this same issue of the Journal should give us pause. In “Use of Research Evidence in State Policymaking for Childhood Obesity Prevention in Minnesota” (page 1894–1900), Gollust et al. present data showing that scientific evidence was used less than half the time in justifying obesity prevention bills in the Minnesota state legislature between 2007 and 2011. In “The Relationship between Gun Ownership and Stranger and Non-Stranger Firearm Homicide Rates in the United States, 1981–2010” (page 1912–1919), Siegel et al. carefully demonstrate on the basis of state-level data that higher rates of gun ownership are associated with increased rates of nonstranger homicides. This flies in the face of repeated claims by the National Rifle Association (NRA) that easier access to guns deters violent crime, and the bitter irony underlying this study is that Congressional capitulation to NRA lobbying made the kind of research on which it is based very difficult to conduct for the past two decades. Finally, in “The Tobacco Industry, Researchers, and Ethical Access to UK Biobank” (page 1833–1838), Capps and van der Eijk argue against tobacco industry access to scientific information in the UK Biobank because of the industry’s long history of deception and distortion in the use of research.
If we put these five contributions together, we can see clearly that while science has indeed been an important friend to public health, we also need to note that the relationship hasn’t always been simple or straightforward. The high hopes created by the first two need to be modulated by the implications of the last three, and we ought to adjust our expectations to avoid believing naively that science will always be a best friend forever to public health. Science isn’t always available, and it sometimes shows evidence of flagging commitment and shifting loyalty. Cultivation of a mature relationship between science and public health—allowing for the complexities of ethics, politics, and the multidimensional determination of policy—would seem the best way to avoid transient adolescent infatuation and to forge, instead, a lasting, growing, and mutually beneficial partnership.