Gilbert Burnham censured for violating ethics code
Dr Gilbert Burnham, lead researcher of the controversial study of “excess deaths” in Iraq attributable to the US-led invasion, has been censured by a prominent group of polling researchers. The American Association for Public Opinion Research rebuked Burnham for persistently refusing to disclose crucial information about the methods used in his study, which was published in The Lancet in 2006.
When asked to provide several basic facts about this research, Burnham refused,” the council said in a statement. It noted that the group’s Code of Professional Ethics and Practices calls for researchers to disclose their methodology when survey findings are made public so they can be independently evaluated and verified.
“Dr. Burnham provided only partial information and explicitly refused to provide complete information about the basic elements of his research,” said Mary Losch, chair of the association’s Standards Committee.
More from AAPOR’s press release:
AAPOR’s President, Richard A. Kulka, added “When researchers draw important conclusions and make public statements and arguments based on survey research data, then subsequently refuse to answer even basic questions about how their research was conducted, this violates the fundamental standards of science, seriously undermines open public debate on critical issues, and undermines the credibility of all survey and public opinion research. These concerns have been at the foundation of AAPOR’s standards and professional code throughout our history, and when these principles have clearly been violated, making the public aware of these violations is in integral part of our mission and values as a professional organization.”
The AAPOR did not address the accuracy of Burnham’s findings but, since his stonewalling renders impossible an impartial scientific scrutiny of the study’s methods, no credence can be given to its purported results.
Burnham and his co-authors contended that, between March 2003 and July 2006, over 650,000 Iraqis died who would not have died had the invasion not occurred. When released in October 2006, the study received massive worldwide publicity. Many experts in statistical survey methodology and other fields immediately questioned its soundness.
Last December, an analytical paper challenging the study’s methodology was named article of the year by the Journal of Peace Research.
Here are links to some posts on the Lancet study at my former blog Magic Statistics:
- Lancet study of Iraqi deaths is statistically unsound and unreliable
- A specification of the Lancet study’s “Main street bias”
- In the spotlight again: Lancet study of Iraqi deaths
- Lancet study: Serious ethical lapses, data quality problems
h/t: personal communication from Michael Spagat
A case of statistics being subservient to ideology, it seems. What a shocker.
This will not ease anyone’s BDS.
[...] POLITICIZED SCIENCE– Gilbert Burnham censured for violating ethics code: Gilbert whom? He’s lead researcher [...]
Why would an opinion poll outfit “censure” an epidemiological survey? That’s like PETA censuring the survey because it didn’t calculate the number of kittens killed during the Iraq liberation. It’s absurd and irrelevant.
BTW – Don’t you think you should have pointed out that Michael Spagat is on the payroll of U.S. military contractors Radiance Technologies, as clearly stated on his CV?
Or are you ashamed of his patriotism?
The American Association for Public Opinion Research is not a “opinion poll outfit”; it is an association of survey research professionals. They did not censure a survey; they censured Gilbert Burnham for refusing to disclose information essential to an independent review of his survey.
Given that AAPOR members are recognised experts in survey methodology, their review of the methods used in Burnham’s survey is quite appropriate and highly relevant.
Prof Spagat sent me links to several news reports of the AAPOR’s censure. What do his professional connections have to do with that?