The article by professors Galea and Link in this issue of the Journal (Am J Epidemiol. 2013;178(6):843-849) is an important contribution to the field of social epidemiology. Their 6 paths provide ample fodder for reflection, debate, and advancement. Although I agree with the thrust and spirit of their recommendations, I argue that if social epidemiology is to advance and become not just more popular but also more useful, we social epidemiologists need to first address our disciplinary pathologies. Among other things, we must embrace macro-to-micro transitions, understand and act on the principles of effect identification, conduct many more experiments, and train students to be not researchers but scientists.