Reply: How do we avoid polarization of interdisciplinary research on cancer diagnosis?

Abstract

First, we would like to take the opportunity to thank Andersen and colleagues for their thorough reading of our paper. We appreciate and welcome a critical dialogue that helps furthering an understanding of early cancer diagnostics. <p>

<p>However, our paper is a critical comment on the epidemiological reasoning that early diagnosis equals better outcomes, using anthropological and social science theory and data to underscore how the logic of early diagnosis may lead to overdiagnosis. While Andersen and colleagues criticise our focus on overdiagnosis stating that it “adds to a polarization and politicization of the field” our work is inspired by the Critical Theory tradition in which research intends to change and critique social and political practice. Having overdiagnosis as the empirical object of our inquiries, with the inevitable iatrogenesis and harm it brings, we hope to “alter the terrain on which future struggles will be waged, thus expanding the set of feasible options for future reforms” (Fraser, in Fraser and Honneth 2003, 79).