From The Desk of a Public Health Scientist.

Clearing up confusion about what constitutes science.

I’ve been receiving some troubling messages lately—messages that accuse me of pretending to be a science communicator when I’m “not an actual scientist.”

Some people have the mistaken belief that science is only biology, chemistry, physics, geology, etc. (sometimes called the “hard” sciences)— that’s a very myopic and simplistic take on what science is. Science is a formal organized approach to evaluating the world around us to make sense of natural phenomena in a way that can be replicated, with the goal of minimizing or counterbalancing the biases that influence human perception. It is methodology and statistics, raw data and interpretation, drawing conclusions, and coming up with novel questions for future research. 

Some scientists conduct research involving cell cultures, chemicals, and genetic testing within sterile lab environments. Others are based outdoors collecting samples and testing theories through field work. The science I practice is conducted through research design, parsing through complex data sets to identify patterns, and performing statistical analyses to answer questions of my own design or those posed by other scientists across different domains. Just because the science I engage in isn’t as flashy or as easily observed as other fields, doesn’t mean I don’t employ the same principles and similar techniques. And it is discouraging to have the decades of education, training, and experience that I and other public health scientists accumulate over our careers disparaged and denied, when in reality our contributions not only overlap with those of the “hard sciences” but are often the bridge between the lab bench and real-world implementation.

In other words, there exists no hierarchy of scientific disciplines. We all work together; our efforts are collaborative and complementary. Take biochemistry, immunology, and virology—scientists in those fields are the driving force in the development of lifesaving interventions such as vaccinations. But how do those vaccines get into arms? Who decides which populations should be prioritized? How can we ensure equitable access for all? What’s the real-world evidence on vaccines? Are they safe? Are they effective? Are they cost-effective? How can we quantify how many lives they have saved? This is where public health steps in.

When many people hear the term "public health," they may think of hand-washing campaigns or community health fairs. While these are important aspects of public health in action carried out by community health workers and/or local departments of health, this perception only scratches the surface of what public health truly encompasses. Public health is a dynamic, multi-faceted field deeply rooted in rigorous scientific methods and evidence-based practices. Its impact on our lives is both profound and often underestimated.

At its core, public health is a science because it embraces the scientific method as a fundamental approach to understanding how the physical environment and our social world impact our well-being. It's not merely about applying existing knowledge; it's about a continuous cycle of inquiry, testing, and refining our understanding of health. This systematic approach allows public health experts to identify health challenges, develop effective interventions, and measure their impact– ultimately improving the health of entire populations.

Public Health encompasses a diverse array of scientific disciplines working in concert. A couple of examples include epidemiologists who meticulously track outbreaks like COVID-19 or Ebola, identifying risk factors and guiding life-saving interventions developed by scientists in other disciplines, and biostatisticians who analyze vast datasets to uncover hidden trends and inform policies that protect communities. Environmental health scientists investigate the complex interplay between our surroundings and our health, informing policies that protect us from harmful toxins and pollutants.

And although the pandemic has shined a light on public health, its impact extends far beyond infectious diseases. Seatbelt laws, smoking bans, and clean water regulations—all products of public health research and advocacy based on real world data—have dramatically improved our safety and well-being. Evaluation scientists (who often fall under the umbrella of public health if they evaluate health-related interventions) play a crucial role in this process, methodically assessing the impact of these interventions to ensure that they are effective and equitable.

While public health certainly involves community engagement and health communications, these initiatives are grounded in a solid foundation of scientific evidence. From the molecular level to the global stage, public health professionals employ rigorous research methods to understand and address the complex challenges facing our communities. So, the next time someone dismisses public health as a "soft" science or not a science at all, remind them of its far-reaching impact and the diverse army of scientists, researchers, and practitioners dedicated to improving the health and well-being of us all.

As for my specific expertise, I’ll break it down for you! My undergraduate degree was a Bachelor of Science (BS) in Health Sciences with a minor in biology. I then received my Master of Public Health (MPH) degree in Evaluative Sciences (with an emphasis on research design and biostatistics), and I completed my Doctor of Public Health (DrPH) with a concentration in health policy evaluation. What does this mean? I am a public health generalist scientist—I have received training in all of the many disciplines of public health (biostatistics, epidemiology, research design, health economics, community health, environmental health, health policy, and more)—and, in practice, this has translated to work using data (some of which I collected, and some of which have already been collected) to assess the impact of different health programs, policies, and interventions on public health (e.g., health outcomes, utilization of healthcare, costs, etc.).

I am also trained to critically appraise the quality of research across different disciplines, even those seemingly outside the scope of public health. As an expert in research design and interpretation of research, I am grateful that Unbiased Science has provided an outlet for me to communicate key research findings and scientific consensus on a variety of topics. This doesn’t mean that I am speaking out of turn or outside of my area of expertise; my generalist training allows me to apply my skillset to studies on a variety of topics. (Though I would never claim to have deep content expertise on these topics, which is precisely why I frequently collaborate with folks who do have that expertise, to provide proper context and nuance on podcast episodes and infographics.)

While I am the sole “face” of Unbiased Science, I also want to let you know that I have an incredible team working with me to develop content and bring science communication to life. This includes clinicians, pharmacists, microbiologists, food scientists, public health practitioners, and more. So, when I use the word "we," please know that I am referring to my amazing interdisciplinary team members who work tirelessly to keep Unbiased Science running or using the "royal we" to refer to public health scientists in general.

P.S. There are also scientific domains outside of biomedical disciplines and public health—let’s not forget about engineers, chemists, physicists, ecologists, and computer scientists, to name a few. Broaden your thinking and remember that science is an approach, not any one specific discipline or field of study. It's a systematic way of asking questions, gathering evidence, testing hypotheses, and drawing conclusions about the world around us – whether that's the inner workings of a cell or the complex social determinants of health.