In recent years, phylogenetic analysis of HIV sequence data has been used in research studies to investigate transmission patterns between individuals and groups, including analysis of data from HIV prevention clinical trials; in molecular epidemiology; and in public health surveillance programs. Phylogenetic analysis can provide valuable information to inform HIV prevention efforts, but it also has risks, including stigma and marginalization of groups, or potential identification of HIV transmission between individuals. In response to these concerns, an interdisciplinary working group was assembled to address ethical challenges in United States-based HIV phylogenetic research. The working group developed recommendations regarding (1) study design; (2) data security, access, and sharing; (3) community engagement; (4) legal issues; and (5) communication and dissemination. The working group also identified areas for future research and scholarship to promote ethical conduct of HIV phylogenetic research.

In its landmark 1988 report, a committee of the Institute of Medicine highlighted assessment as one of the three core functions of public health along with policy development and assurance. The committee recommended that every public health agency regularly and systematically collect, assemble, analyze, and make available information on the health of the community, including statistics on health status, community health needs, and epidemiologic and other studies of health problems. Public health surveillance, often called the cornerstone of public health practice, is an essential element of the assessment function.

PURPOSE: To review U.S. national population-based surveys to evaluate comparability and conceptual clarity of vision measures. DESIGN: Perspective. METHODS: The vision questions in 12 surveys were mapped to the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health framework under the domains of condition, impairment, activity limitation, participation, and environment. Surveys examined include the National Health Interview Survey, the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, the Census, and the Visual Function Questionnaire. RESULTS: Nearly 100 vision measures were identified in 12 surveys. These surveys provided no consistent measure of vision or vision impairment. Survey questions asked about differing characteristics of vision-related disease, function, and social roles. A question related to ability to read newspaper print was the most commonly asked question in surveys. CONCLUSIONS: Limited comparability of data and lack of conceptual clarity in the population-based surveys resulted in an inability to consistently characterize the population of people experiencing vision impairment. Consequently, vision surveillance was limited.

OBJECTIVES: We assessed ethics competencies of public health professionals in codes and competencies, reviewed ethics instruction at schools of public health, and recommended ways to bridge the gap between them. METHODS: We reviewed the code of ethics and 3 sets of competencies, separating ethics-related competencies into 3 domains: professional, research, and public health. We reviewed ethics course requirements in 2010-2011 on the Internet sites of 46 graduate schools of public health and categorized courses as required, not required, or undetermined. RESULTS: Half of schools (n = 23) required an ethics course for graduation (master's or doctoral level), 21 did not, and 2 had no information. Sixteen of 23 required courses were 3-credit courses. Course content varied from 1 ethics topic to many topics addressing multiple ethics domains. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent ethics education and competency evaluation can be accomplished through a combination of a required course addressing the 3 domains, integration of ethics topics in other courses, and "booster" trainings. Enhancing ethics competence of public health professionals is important to address the ethical questions that arise in public health research, surveillance, practice, and policy. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print September 20, 2012: e1-e5. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2012.300680).

Public health ethics is a nascent field, emerging over the past decade as an applied field merging concepts of clinical and research ethics. Because the "patient" in public health is the population rather than the individual, existing principles might be weighted differently, or there might be different ethical principles to consider. This paper reviewed the evolution of public health ethics, the use of bioethics as its model, and the proposed frameworks for public health ethics through 2010. Review of 13 major public health ethics frameworks published over the past 15 years yields a wide variety of theoretical approaches, some similar foundational values, and a few similar operating principles. Coming to a consensus on the reach, purpose, and ends of public health is necessary if we are to agree on what ethical underpinnings drive us, what foundational values bring us to these underpinnings, and what operating principles practitioners must implement to make ethical decisions. If public health is distinct enough from clinical medicine to warrant its own set of ethical and philosophical underpinnings, then a decision must be made as to whether a single approach is warranted or we can tolerate a variety of equal but different perspectives.

The roots of modern public health surveillance took hold in 17th century Europe (1), but the seed for CDC's role as America's national agency for collecting, analyzing, interpreting, and using data to protect the public's health was firmly planted only in 1961, when the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) was transferred to what was then the Communicable Disease Center (CDC; now the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) (2). The advent of MMWR at CDC marked the beginning of CDC's responsibility for aggregating and publishing data weekly on nationally notifiable diseases and publishing the data annually in MMWR's Summary of Notifiable Diseases, United States.

This supplement of MMWR celebrates the 50th anniversary of CDC's first publication of MMWR on January 13, 1961 (Figure 1). MMWR was not new in 1961, but it was new to CDC, an agency that itself had been founded only 15 years earlier, in 1946 (1). The longer history of MMWR traces back to July 13, 1878, when the first predecessor of MMWR, called simply The Bulletin of the Public Health, was inaugurated. The Bulletin was established in accordance with the first National Quarantine Act, passed by Congress 2 months earlier. The Act ordered the Surgeon General of the U.S. Marine-Hospital Service to begin publishing abstracted disease reports collected from U.S. consuls in foreign lands to alert U.S. quarantine officials about what diseases could be expected among passengers arriving on steamships (2,3). In the 83 years from 1878 to 1961, MMWR went through several incarnations. By 1952, the publication had its current name and was being published by the National Office of Vital Statistics, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. In 1960, CDC's renowned chief of epidemiology, Alexander D. Langmuir, decided that MMWR should be transferred to CDC (then known as the Communicable Disease Center). After much discussion, and as Langmuir later said in an interview, "all sorts of pulling out teeth by the roots without anesthesia and all kinds of internal frictions," in 1960, MMWR was transferred to CDC (4). | | In 2009, as the 50th anniversary of MMWR loomed, the MMWR Editor (F.E.S.) began discussions with leaders at CDC and the MMWR Editorial Board about how best to commemorate this date. Members of the Board, editors, and friends of MMWR offered many good ideas. In the end, the most persuasive idea was to celebrate the 50th anniversary simply by doing what MMWR has done best for 5 decades at CDC: publish articles of high value to its readers. The title of the supplement is "Public Health Then and Now: Celebrating 50 Years of MMWR at CDC." The supplement's guest editors (F.E.S., K.S.K., L.M.L., S.B.T.) selected a cadre of expert authors who have long experience in their respective fields of public health---enough to enable them to look back over the past 50 years and trace the most important influences and developments. The guest editors asked the authors to answer three key questions. What was the state of the art in 1961? How did it develop through 50 years into its present form? What does the future hold? Thus, with few exceptions, the 16 articles that make up this supplement are not meant to be about MMWR but instead are meant to trace the development of key areas of public health through the 50-year era of MMWR at CDC. | | The authors took up the challenge admirably. The result is a diverse set of articles that portray public health in 1961 and forward in time to the present and beyond. The articles range from detailed historical review, to analyses of MMWR content, to the more whimsical. They are not meant to be exhaustive, nor can they treat their topics as thoroughly as would a longer text, but they do depict the main events, developments, and innovations that led public health to where it stands today.

The past decade has brought substantial changes in how data related to a community's health are collected, stored, and used to inform decisions about health interventions. Despite these changes, the purpose of public health surveillance has remained constant for more than a century. Public health surveillance is the ongoing, systematic collection, analysis, and interpretation of health-related data with the a priori purpose of preventing or controlling disease or injury, or of identifying unusual events of public health importance, followed by the dissemination and use of information for public health action. Surveillance is an important and necessary contributor to knowledge of a community's health. The public health system is responsible for ensuring that public health surveillance is conducted with appropriate practices and safeguards in order to maintain the public's trust.

Public health surveillance by necessity occurs without explicit patient consent. There is strong legal and scientific support for maintaining name-based reporting of infectious diseases and other types of public health surveillance. We present conditions under which surveillance without explicit patient consent is ethically justifiable using principles of contemporary clinical and public health ethics. Overriding individual autonomy must be justified in terms of the obligation of public health to improve population health, reduce inequities, attend to the health of vulnerable and systematically disadvantaged persons, and prevent harm. In addition, data elements collected without consent must represent the minimal necessary interference, lead to effective public health action, and be maintained securely. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print November 17, 2011: e1-e7. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2011.300297).

Public health agencies at all levels—local, state, and federal—collect, store, and use personal health and behavior data to meet their legal obligation to identify and control health threats or evaluate and improve public health programs or services. The foundation for this collection of health data is public trust, which requires maintaining the privacy and security of sensitive information. Despite its critical importance, there is no national standard for safeguarding data held by public health agencies. Instead, privacy safeguards are fragmented across 50 states, creating uncertain and inconsistent privacy protection.1 During the 1990s, model laws were created to ensure uniform and strong privacy safeguards,2 but countrywide adoption has proved difficult. The US Congress is currently debating privacy standards for electronic medical records,3 but these reforms do not include public health records because they are effectively exempt from the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule.4 It is now time to consider a national strategy for protecting public health data.