When I'm 64 ... will you still need me? Epidemiology in country practice: W H Pickles, 1939*.(Editorials)(Editorial)

Aseminal book that has been read and assessed during past decades by many public health students and practitioners is now 64 years old. Can it still offer insight, inspiration, and renewal for public health as it approaches 65, or should it be pensioned off?

This reader friendly narrative covers many interesting and educational themes, public health scientific (communicable diseases) issues of the day, and helps illustrate the work of a GP and also rural life in Wensleydale through the 1930s. However, it is important to dwell on the overall feel about Pickles that comes from this work.

Pickles demonstrates key elements of a public health leader; good (written and listening) communication skills, being ahead of his time, exploring challenging issues for science and society, systematic interest in health and disease and its determinants, a good humanitarian empathy for real people and their problems, and a seeming aptitude for partnership work to support the grand, more strategic project of his local epidemiological profiling.

Lessons from Pickles' work still have resonance in contemporary and future scenarios for public health and primary care. Geographical well demarcated village communities facilitated the clear identification and sense of ownership by Pickles with the local population. Also living within them as neighbours and in social activities was part of the continuity and understanding built up over years of practice. It is still feasible for rural GPs to do this, but also for urban GPs with their own registered population can look at the health of those people with their own partners, as part of neighbourhood or locality public health, or within the primary care trust's overall public health remit, or indeed within the wider local public health network.

Pickles acted as a narrator and recorder of the health experience of the local population. This was legitimate in that there was no competition, rivalry, and fear from other practices, as he and his partner covered a defined population of their own. His legitimacy also stemmed from his position as part time medical officer of health. His scientific and organisational credibility was probably enhanced by links to public health officials and academics. He was able to recognise potential for partnership and developing public health capacity; demonstrated in looking to his wife and daughter for support in his recording and in harnessing interest of school head teachers. The latter in recognition of his interest in schools as population groups and as opportunities for understanding spread of infection.

His systematic recording and presentation of charts of infection was noteworthy, as was his attention to details of history of travel, occupation, social interaction, and clinical features including onset dates.

His amusing insights into human behaviour have resonance today. The grim statistics of re-emergence of sexually transmitted diseases might have more striking impact if they were written about in a more rounded fashion, giving qualitative and personal experience more prominence alongside the statistics. This was partly evident during the original documentation of HIV and AIDS transmission and risk behaviour.