The Lancet gives truth the shaft
It’s not been a real good week for The Lancet, the well-known medical journal based in London and New York.
Remember the famous Iraq casualty study, researched by one Gilbert Burnham of Johns Hopkins, and published in Lancet’s pages back in October of 2006? The one that found deaths far exceeding all previous estimates, and was quoted favorably by the antiwar crowd?
Now the American Association for Public Opinion Research has accused author Burnham of violating its code of ethics in failing to disclose his research methods, and Johns Hopkins is studying to see whether Burnham violated its research guidelines as well.
As for Burnham, he’s refusing to come clean, even now. Being secretive about such things is in and of itself a huge violation of standards: research must be transparent if it is to be considered valid, because it cannot be evaluated, tested, or perhaps replicated without this vital information. And Lancet is keeping mum as well about its role.
Now still another hugely influential piece of research originally published in Lancet has become exceedingly suspect. There is growing evidence that Andrew Wakefield, the man who popularized the idea that there is a link between the MMR vaccine and autism, and whose 1998 research caused a resultant drop in the number of parents willing to have their children immunized, fudged his results.
This sort of thing happens in research periodically, amd it is always a disgrace. It goes to the heart of trust in science and violates its most basic tenets. The special problem here is that both studies had a great hand in shaping public opinion on controversial and important topics, as well.
A widely-read and highly-respected periodical such as Lancet has a profound duty to subject its articles to proper peer review. In recent years it appears to be falling down badly on the job. Could it be that the periodical is more interested in circulation and stirring up controversy than promoting proper science?
[NOTE: I have previously discussed the misconceptions about the so-called “autism epidemic,” as well as the fears that keep parents from vaccinating their children, here and here.]
It seems quite apparent that the Lancet can no longer be considered a quality, peer-reviewed medical journal and has become a populist rag for printing unsubstantiated “scientific research”.
Any researcher wishing to be taken seriously as a professional should avoid submitting their work to the Lancet lest their work be tainted by the association.
It almost seems that the left politicizes EVERYTHING lately.
If data doesn’t match their interest they are interested in changing the data.
1) Census
2) Post August 1981 tax rate reduction data
3) Minnesota ballots
4) Climate data
5) Deaths in Iraq
6) The amount of increases in spending called “cuts” (they’ve done this for decades)
Anything sacred???
Heck, when Bill Cosby talks about out of wedlock births he the messenger is talked bad about.
Dear Liberals,
The hardest thing in life to do is accept what is. Please accept data as is.
“Could it be that the periodical is more interested in circulation and stirring up controversy than promoting proper science?”
More than likely it is the political bent of the editors and reviewers, at least in the case of the Iraq casualty paper. And of course the guy won’t cooperate: he “knows” that he’s right about the war, just as Hansen knows that he is right about global warming. And they both know that they are right about society and economics and social justice, etc.
Also, these sorts of studies are more closely related to social science-type research than they are to bench top or field research. That is, they compile numbers and then crunch them to fit what they know to be the correct answer. Same as those studies that show that women are routinely denied opportunities in academia, even though the opposite is the reality, or the studies that show that the perceived criminality in the black community is due to structural racism, not criminal behavior. Then the MSM highlights the claims and it becomes “common knowledge” for the purpose of debate or discussion, and, ultimately, policy.
Pingback:What Would We Catholics Ever Do [Dan Collins]
The Lancet is on the same road that the venerable JAMA is taking: unapologetic left wing propaganda organ. JAMA is edited by Dr. Catherine DeAngelis, a public health physician who uses her bully pulpit to scold and broadcast her agenda. Last year nearly an entire issue was devoted to flogging Merck for fudging data on its lab studies that put its product in a bad light. All well and good, except that nothing new was reported, just a rehash of facts that had been pounded into the public consciousness by trial attorneys and the MSM. JAMA used to be about publishing scientific research, not health care advocacy.
Dan – People move on to advocacy when they get tired of the hard work of actually doing good for others.
The fake autism study is not news. Anthony Daniels wrote about it back in 2007. I discussed the whole problem of scientific credibility in this post way back in 2005:
http://lightseekinglight.blogspot.com/2005/12/crisis-of-scientific-authority.html
The Lancet and the British Medical Journal have also both published pieces critical of Israel that read like propaganda and contained inaccurate claims and wild accusations.
If you have a mind for statistics and possess a little common sense you probably knew right away that the Lancet study on Iraqi civilian casualties was way exaggerated.
Why would an Association for Public Opinion Research have any competence to assess an epidemiological study?
That’s a bit like getting an economist to examine your dental x-rays.
Robert Shone – they are assessing his adherence to ethics. They’re pretty good at that.
Why would Robert Shone have any competence to assess the Association for Public Opinion Resarch?
That’s a bit like a commoner examining a neurosurgeon’s competence….