Barriers to knowledge production, knowledge translation, and urban health policy change: ideological, economic, and political considerations

In this paper, we consider social forces that affect the processes of both knowledge production and knowledge translation in relation to urban health research. First, we briefly review our conceptual model, derived from a social-conflict framework, to outline how unequal power relations and health inequalities are causally linked. Second, we critically discuss ideological, political, and economic barriers that exist within academia that affect knowledge production related to urban health and health inequalities. Third, we broaden the scope of our analysis to examine how the ideological, political, and economic environment beyond the academy creates barriers to health equity policy making. We conclude with some key questions about the role that knowledge translation can possibly play in light of these constraints on research and policy for urban health.

Does racism harm health? Did child abuse exist before 1962? On explicit questions, critical science, and current controversies: an ecosocial perspective

Research on racism as a harmful determinant of population health is in its infancy. Explicitly naming a long-standing problem long recognized by those affected, this work has the potential to galvanize inquiry and action, much as the 1962 publication of the Kempe et al. scientific article on the "battered child syndrome" dramatically increased attention to-and prompted new research on-the myriad consequences of child abuse, a known yet neglected social phenomenon. To further work on connections between racism and health, the author addresses 3 interrelated issues: (1) links between racism, biology, and health; (2) methodological controversies over how to study the impact of racism on health; and (3) debates over whether racism or class underlies racial/ethnic disparities in health.

Stormy weather: race, gene expression, and the science of health disparities

In the current US political climate, conservative foundations are seeking to frame debates over determinants of racial/ethnic health disparities as a matter of "politically correct" unscientific ideology (concerning the health impacts of discrimination) vs scientific yet "politically incorrect" expertise rooted in biological facts (concerning genes). I draw on historical and contemporary examples to place conservative polemics in context, and also highlight fundamental flaws in their arguments involving the use of spurious categories (e.g., Caucasian), logical fallacies, temporal fallacies, and an erroneous emphasis on gene frequency over gene expression. The larger goal is to strengthen development of a more critical, reflexive, and rigorous science capable of generating evidence useful for rectifying--rather than perpetuating--social disparities in health.