empty rhetoric

(via lgf): The infamous Lancet Iraq study- which claimed that more than 650,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the U.S. invasion- is again under scrutiny, this time by significant, well-respected members of the scientific community:

The statistics made headlines all over the world when they were published in The Lancet in October last year. More than 650,000 Iraqis – one in 40 of the population – had died as a result of the American-led invasion in 2003. The vast majority of these “excess” deaths (deaths over and above what would have been expected in the absence of the occupation) were violent. The victims, both civilians and combatants, had fallen prey to airstrikes, car bombs and gunfire.

[...]

One critic is Professor Michael Spagat, a statistician from Royal Holloway College, University of London. He and colleagues at Oxford University point to the possibility of “main street bias” – that people living near major thoroughfares are more at risk from car bombs and other urban menaces. Thus, the figures arrived at were likely to exceed the true number. The Lancet study authors initially told The Times that “there was no main street bias” and later amended their reply to “no evidence of a main street bias”.

Professor Spagat says the Lancet paper contains misrepresentations of mortality figures suggested by other organisations, an inaccurate graph, the use of the word “casualties” to mean deaths rather than deaths plus injuries, and the perplexing finding that child deaths have fallen. Using the “three-to-one rule” – the idea that for every death, there are three injuries – there should be close to two million Iraqis seeking hospital treatment, which does not tally with hospital reports.

“The authors ignore contrary evidence, cherry-pick and manipulate supporting evidence and evade inconvenient questions,” contends Professor Spagat, who believes the paper was poorly reviewed. “They published a sampling methodology that can overestimate deaths by a wide margin but respond to criticism by claiming that they did not actually follow the procedures that they stated.” The paper had “no scientific standing”. Did he rule out the possibility of fraud? “No.”

Apparently Spagat is actually not a statistician (at least according to lgf), nevertheless, I think his criticisms of the report have significant merit, given that they aren’t based in the flaming, unsubstantiated rhetoric we find elsewhere in the political arena. Indeed, if you inspect the linked article closely, you’ll note that his critique of the study is mostly based in criticisms about its use of scientific investigation (or lack thereof).

What does this mean in the discussion over the Iraq war as far as mainstream culture is concerned? Firstly, it represents a naked attempt to manipulate data to support a particular political position- something that the left has been quite fond of. We’ve already seen the unabashed arrogance of Michael Moore systematically destroyed when put under the microscope, as well as several other instances of mainstream leftist figures quoting incorrect data- or worse yet, incorrectly quoting accurate data. Even Jimmy Carter, whose most recent treatise on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has been shown to be factually inaccurate, is not immune. This is a widespread problem for the generalized left, and has shown up across the leftist spectrum time and time again.

Secondly, it illustrates the bankruptcy of science when married to politics. This has far-reaching implications beyond merely the debate over how many people have died in Iraq (or what the effects of the Iraq war are on the world). It has definite consequences in the debate over climate science and its attempts to understand one of the most complex systems known to man- the global warming debate has consistently proven to be an avenue for the worst kinds of academic and scientific dishonesty. It has consequences for the debate over stem cell research and abortion, as well as the somewhat-marginalized debate over genetically-modified food. It has consequences in the debate over Intelligent Design, as well as the larger discussion about origins.

The Scientific Method is revolutionary in its attempt to remove personal bias from factual investigation, and by and large, it manages to do so. But when a politicized issue is investigated in such a manner so as to ensure that one side of the political debate is shored up by what appears to be objective analysis, the entire process is corrupted. It is an affront to Science itself that the Lancet so wildly and shamelessly attempted to misconstrue factual evidence under a political banner.

Thirdly, it casts doubt on the notion that academia represents an extra-political entity. Conservatives have long complained that higher education, including graduate institutions, are hopelessly biased in favor of the left. The Lancet represents a rather telling example of how many in the academic community occasionally abandon some of their most cherished intellectual principles in favor of attacking an unpopular political position. As one of the oldest peer-reviewed medical journals in the world, it is troubling that the Lancet would so readily allow such an obviously manipulated and inflated study to be published in the pages of their otherwise respectable journal. From the article:

If you factor in politics, the heat increases. One of The Lancet authors, Dr Les Roberts, campaigned for a Democrat seat in the US House of Representatives and has spoken out against the war. Dr Richard Horton, editor of the The Lancet is also antiwar. He says: “I believe this paper was very thoroughly reviewed. Every piece of work we publish is criticised – and quite rightly too. No research is perfect. The best we can do is make sure we have as open, transparent and honest a debate as we can. Then we’ll get as close to the truth as possible. That is why I was so disappointed many politicians rejected the findings of this paper before really thinking through the issues.”

All of my conclusions obviously assume that the study was at least one some level fraudulent- something that, after a modicum of research on the matter, seems quite obvious, however, I don’t think they are only supported by the Lancet controversy. After all, as I’ve pointed out, this isn’t the first time such naked bias has made its way into leftist politics masquerading as science, nor do I think it will be the last. There is enough spin, manipulation, and outright dishonesty on both sides of the political debate to ensure that it will continue, however, I do think that, given that the left’s major political strategy has been based on attacking their opponent rather than supporting their own positions, it represents evidence of a significantly larger body of dishonesty from the left (rather than the right), and I suspect that this trend, which has shown a propensity to increase, not decrease, will continue.

Tags: Bush, current-events, Democratic-Party, GOP, Iraq, Politics, Lancet-study, Lancet, Iraq-Body-Count