prev next front |1 |2 |3 |4 |5 |6 |7 |8 |9 |10 |11 |12 |13 |14 |15 |16 |17 |18 |19 |20 |21 |22 |23 |24 |25 |26 |27 |28 |29 |30 |31 |32 |33 |34 |35 |36 |37 |38 |review
I do not use the term “hero” lightly. But another hero, and a contemporary one in epidemiology, is the physician-scientist, Barry Marshall, who hails from my hometown of Perth, Western Australia. His “ah-ha” experience in the laboratory led him to the radical hypothesis that peptic ulcers resulted from infection by the bacterium, Helicobacter pylori. For the cause of science, Marshall became ill as a consequence of drinking a solution contaminated with this bacterium, and also endured ridicule from the global medical establishment for his discovery. Fortunately for him, professional vindication came while he was still a young man.

Irrespective of the method or source of formulation, the term hypothesis is in disfavor among contemporary risk factor epidemiologists. Indeed, related to a sometime contentious biostatistical issue, epidemiologists strongly prefer to say that they are evaluating research questions rather than testing hypotheses. However, even if the hypothesis is no longer a central concept in epidemiologic research in the formal sense, it is still useful to gain insight on how analytic epidemiologists inform their thinking.