Posted by Jonathan Adler:
Revisiting the *Lancet* Study on Iraqi War Deaths:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_12_30-2008_01_05.shtml#1199562673
In 2006, the Lancet published a [1]controversial study finding a
substantial, continuing Iraqi death toll in the years following the
2003 U.S. invasion. The study bolstered critics of the Iraq war and
prompted substantial debate, online and elsewhere.
Neil Munro [2]revisits the Lancet study in the new issue of National
Journal.
In the ensuing year, numerous skeptics have identified various
weaknesses with the study's methodology and conclusions. Political
blogs and academic journals have registered and responded to the
objections in a debate that has been simultaneously arcane and
predictable. The arguments are arcane because that is the nature of
statistical analysis. They are predictable because that is the
nature of today's polarized political discourse, with liberals
defending the Lancet study and conservatives contesting it.
How to explain the enormous discrepancy between The Lancet's
estimation of Iraqi war deaths and those from studies that used
other methodologies? For starters, the authors of the Lancet study
followed a model that ensured that even minor components of the
data, when extrapolated over the whole population, would yield huge
differences in the death toll. Skeptical commentators have
highlighted questionable assumptions, implausible data, and
ideological leanings among the authors, Gilbert Burnham, Riyadh
Lafta, and Les Roberts.
I did not follow the debate closely enough to reach a conclusion about
the merits of the study or its critics. The Munro article provides a
convenient overviewof the controversy for those of us without the time
or patience to wade into the depths of the debate. Munro is not
entirely neutral, however, as he concludes there are potential
problems with the initial study.
Over the past several months, National Journal has examined the
2006 Lancet article, and another [[3]PDF] that some of the same
authors published in 2004; probed the problems of estimating
wartime mortality rates; and interviewed the authors and their
critics. NJ has identified potential problems with the research
that fall under three broad headings: 1) possible flaws in the
design and execution of the study; 2) a lack of transparency in the
data, which has raised suspicions of fraud; and 3) political
preferences held by the authors and the funders, which include
George Soros's Open Society Institute.
Of these critiques, I find the political preferences of the authors
and their funders to be the least persuasive. Political bias of this
sort could certainly explain problems with the study, such as a
failure to scrutinize sources and ensure their reliability, but I do
not think that the authors' ideological predispositions (or those of
the funders) should, in and of themselves, case doubts on the study's
findings. The Lancet study's conclusions should stand or fall on their
own. In this regard, it is interesting that Munro reports the Lancet
editors are less confident of the analysis than they once had been.
Today, the journal's editor tacitly concedes discomfort with the
Iraqi death estimates. "Anything [the authors] can do to strengthen
the credibility of the Lancet paper," Horton told NJ, "would be
very welcome." If clear evidence of misconduct is presented to The
Lancet, "we would be happy to go ask the authors and the
institution for an official inquiry, and we would then abide by the
conclusion of that inquiry."
References
1.
http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf
2. http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/databomb/index.htm
3. http://www.zmag.org/lancet.pdf
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
