The first of a three-part series on what we think, believe, and do, and the moral imperatives that shape our work.
I have long felt that the work of health does not rest only on surfacing the data that explain what causes health, but also on making a moral argument about why we should act on those data. We make our case for approaches we think will support health by communicating both the science and the moral imperative to create a better world. This reflects writing I have done about the intersection of our knowledge and our values: how we should aspire to strike a balance between what we know—what our data tell us—and our commitment to shaping a healthier world based on principles of justice, equity, inclusion, and respect for the dignity and autonomy of all. To my mind, the work of public health is achieved when the data point to a particular course of action and when there is strong acceptance, informed by our values, for taking that course of action. For example, the data are clear about the importance of childhood vaccination, and it seems inarguable that, as a basic value, we should do all we can to ensure children do not acquire deadly diseases like polio or measles. Ideally, then, we should aim to achieve this balance between what the data suggest is correct and what our values tells us is right. The work of health therefore builds on data from population health science, combined with making a moral argument. In some ways, this aligns with our work to move the Overton window and to change what we regard as acceptable. These are all examples of goals that can best be accomplished by making a moral argument, marshaling the facts to make the case for policies that support a healthier world.
Read more here.