How did someone who started out with a love for chemistry end up as a historian?
What drew you to public health?
Of course, I’m a child of the ‘60s, meaning that I entered college thinking that science was inherently a force for good. By the end of the ‘60s, our image of what chemistry was, and what technology could do, were sullied by our experiences in Vietnam. I actually flirted briefly with becoming a chemistry major and remember all too well when my flirtation ended. As a junior at City College of New York when entering my introductory chemistry lecture, I was confronted by a picket line and a friend of mine carrying a picket sign. The sign had a question mark after DuPont’s famous slogan, “Better Living Through Chemistry,” and a picture of a village burning, ostensibly from a napalm attack.
It was then that I became deeply concerned with the “ethics” and the history of science. I became a psychology major, thinking that this major combined a scientific methodology with deeply humanistic concerns. By the time I graduated, I came to believe that the issues of public health and psychology were intimately connected after working in a research unit with the New York State Department of Mental Hygiene. So many of the children were suffering from issues that were not solely “psychological,” as I then understood them, but from basic public health problems.
Public health seemed to be a field that could combine good science, great public service, and incredible humanity when properly applied. I became interested in health and society, how disease is a product not just of “natural” process but of the worlds we build and the inequities that are all too often the root of the problems our people face....