The Versatile “Caveat” Section of an Epidemiology Paper

Abstract

Are toxic-exposure epidemiologists influenced, when writing the “caveat” portion of their articles, by how the media, public, and courts might use their work? Qualitative interviews with 61 epidemiologists revealed that they relied on caveats to manage “public risk”—inappropriate use of their work by nonscientists. However, few considered caveats effective for this task. Caveats may be more important for managing professional risk, as subjects used caveats to preempt criticism, to advertise their credibility, to adhere to conventions, to hedge, and to deflect attention from flaws in their articles. The data bear implications for the definition of science, the demarcation of scientists from nonscientists, and the issue of scientists' responsibility.