Science

Via commenter AMac:

Tim Lambert has a new post that responds to some of Shannon’s arguments and takes me to task.

AMac himself posted this comment on Tim Lambert’s site, and I think summarizes well most of the important concerns about the Lancet piece. AMac is more cautious in his inferences than I would be, but I may be wrong and he may be right. He is generally thoughtful and fair-minded, and his contributions to the comment threads on this topic have been very helpful. I suspect that the data used in the Lancet study are of such low quality as to be of little practical use, but additional scrutiny of those data can’t hurt and should suggest ways in which future surveys could be improved.

UPDATE: AMac helpfully forwards some additional links in his comment below.

UPDATE 2: AMac provides this link to his latest and greatest post at WOC. Worth reading.

Thanks to Heiko’s and Jonathan’s comments; they have a sense of proportionality. Also Heiko shows us what a good study can do: narrow, real, thorough; then it points to modifications that will (clearly their motive) save lives.

I delete most of my friend’s e-mails on Schiavo or skim them to be polite. To him, as a Catholic, this case has attained great significance. Quality of life, what is life – these are important questions and of course he believes quite strongly in what Pinker dismisses as the “ghost in the machine.” I’m closer to my friend in that, but not all the way. The tensions involve the big issues – what is life and what is death, the relationship between the family and state. This then moves to the ancient tensions: between the “new” family of the Schiavo’s marriage and the “blood” family of the Schindlers; between the state and the federal government, between the courts and Congress. So, now, not only have people of strong religious commitment weighed in, but so have doctors. Then, politicians entered: not always grandstanding, they are often legitimately moved by these two issues. The big hitters on constitutional law on the blogs then enlisted in the battle. Yes, I’ll admit its importance not only to my friend but to others, on both sides of most of these issues. I can only feel sorrow at her death and sympathy with her parents, her husband, and even those involved in what has become a pathetic circus in front of her hospice. But I still delete. I know my sympathies will be pulled & cloud my mind; I won’t be able to deal with the big questions. Others argue that the cliche is wrong; that, indeed, hard cases can make good law. I have my doubts. Certainly, my husband’s argument that dysfunctional families make bad law seems true. I suspect both sides have enlisted troops to satisfy gnawing uncertainties. Applications in family matters to such external authority comes from a “nuclear option” mentality and a lack of confidence. I sympathize but suspect it arises from an unwillingness to face truths at which most of us would blink.

Read more

My use of strong language to describe both the process and people involved in creating and publishing the Lancet Iraqi Mortality Survey has really set some readers off. I used such language intentionally, expressly because I did not wish to convey the impression that the only matters under discussion were dry scientific technicalities with no broader import than Iraq. I have used pejoratives such as “scientific whores” to describe those responsible for the study because I am angry and I want people to know it. I am angry because I am scared.

People who think I have been unfairly harsh in my assessment of those who created and published the Lancet paper should ask themselves this:

“What if Shannon is right? What if a major scientific journal and the peer review process it represents has been politically subverted? What are the consequences of such subversion beyond the this particular study?”

Read more

(From the comments on this post.)

dsquared:

This is, of course, untrue, though I doubt any neutral observers were fooled. If Shannon decides to declare victory on this account he/she is a bigger fool than I thought, which is quite some fool.
 

[. . .]
 

By the way, can we get the charge clear; Shannon is still saying (falsely) that the authors made “sweeping claims of mass murder”, but appears to have dropped the accusation that they did so specifically in order to provide propaganda for Iraqi fascists? I only ask for the benefit of the libel lawyers who I still hope will take an interest in this series.

Shannon Love:

One of the disturbing things about the sociology of this study is the degree to which many have embraced its findings as revealed truth even though, just as any other scientific study, it must be verified through replication before we can confirm its accuracy. (Our arguments over methodology are so vociferous because we don’t have any other means of evaluating the accuracy of the study. Solid science ends arguments, it doesn’t start them.)
 

If we use a single, unverified study to direct our policy we are not actually basing our decisions on good science.

So my old nemesis the Bogus Lancet study of Iraqi casualties is showing up again here and there so I thought I would revisit it.

What grabbed my attention this time around is the intentionally inconsistent use of the Falluja cluster data. The study produces radically different results depending on whether the Falluja data is included or excluded. With the Falluja data, most of the excess deaths result from violence, without it most excess deaths result from accident or disease. With the Falluja data, most of deaths from violence were of woman and children, without it, most of the deaths from violence were of military aged males. With the Falluja data, well over 250,000 Iraqi, over 1% of the entire population, have died largely from Coalition helicopter airstrikes, without it, that number is in the more plausible tens of thousands.

The highly selective inclusion or exclusion of the Falluja data in various statements are clearly finely tuned for maximum political impact while still conveying a plausible number of Iraqi deaths. The paper is clearly written to maximize the damage to the Coalition war effort and for political impact in the US presidential election.

It is an act of outright scientific corruption, a lie in a lab coat.

Read more