--- Begin Forwarded Message ---
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 06:49:21 -0700
From: Ellen Shaffer <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [spiritof1848] FW: Sally Satel takes aim in
the Weekly Standard (fwd)
Sender: Ellen Shaffer <[log in to unmask]>
To: Sam Friedman <[log in to unmask]>,
[log in to unmask]
Reply-To: Ellen Shaffer <[log in to unmask]>
Message-ID:
<[log in to unmask]>
Just a note on pots and kettles: Both Marmor and Satel make a living both
prescribing and advocating policy, and neither practices the research they
endeavor to critique. It's important to keep scientific research
investigations rigorous and honest (Marmor, as a professor of public policy
and political science, conducts little if any of this kind of research;
Satel, as this list has well analyzed, barely understands the concepts and
certainly doesn't practice them). This is different from attempting to
intimidate researchers into believing the absurd proposition that they
cannot and should not draw policy conclusions based on their results. I
don't know what power researchers have to "prescribe" solutions; elected
officials usually enact them, and hopefully rely on good information as
well as political considerations in making decisions. Researchers aren't
the only members of society with a bead on the best policy solutions e.g.
to inequality, but certainly are well qualified to advance proposals and to
advocate for them. There is more to be said regarding the role of income
inequality in health; to the extent there are associations, those best
acquainted with the evidence are also well qualified to comment on its
implications. The prescription that researchers or public health
practitioners should find ways to reduce health risks without addressing
the social environment in which they flourish reveals a profound ignorance
of public health; it is remarkable that Satel as a mental health
practitioner so consistently objects to considering effects of the
interactions between individuals and their social relationships. (The
widely held mainstream belief that social programs should mitigate the
harmful effects of capitalism is a bedrock of the social work and public
health professions, and certainly underlies large-scale philanthropic
support by most capitalists for such programs. This is the beginning, not
the end, of the range of policy options.) It is likely that any evidence
or analysis critical of capitalism would be unacceptable to Satel. The
terms, limits, and links between scientific inquiry, policy development,
and advocacy should be asserted by those engaged, and not deterred by a
political agenda that would stifle such endeavors. - Ellen
|