A Johns Hopkins professor who co-authored a study suggesting that huge numbers of civilians have died during the U.S. war in Iraq was accused of ethics violations yesterday by a prominent group of polling researchers, and university officials announced that they are conducting their own review.
The rebuke, by the American Association for Public Opinion Research, came after an investigation into how Dr. Gilbert Burnham of the Bloomberg School of Public Health determined that nearly 655,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the U.S.-led invasion and its bloody aftermath. The results – which estimated hundreds of thousands more deaths than the Bush administration had reported – were published in 2006 in The Lancet, a leading British medical journal.
Officials of the association, of which Burnham is not a member, said Burnham refused to disclose the wording of his questions and basic methodological details of his research, a violation of the group’s code of ethics and practices. That makes it impossible for other researchers to verify the work, said Mary E. Losch, chairwoman of the AAPOR’s Standards Committee….
Burnham does not seem to list the Lancet article on his webpage, though he has written other pieces for the Lancet.
Note the blizzard of skeptical questions for Burnham here.
Press release from AAPOR.
Recall the similar case of Michael Bellesiles.
****************
Update: A reader, David, points out that the likely article is indeed listed on Burnham’s website. I overlooked it because it’s the only listing that doesn’t include a date of publication. Here’s the citation:
Roberts L, Lafta R, Garfield R, Khudhairi J, Burnham G. Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey. Lancet, 364:1857-64.
UD thanks her reader.
February 5th, 2009 at 10:33AM
This isn’t the article (from his webpage)?
"* Roberts L, Lafta R, Garfield R, Khudhairi J, Burnham G. Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey. Lancet, 364:1857-64."
February 5th, 2009 at 10:59AM
Thank you, David. I was following the dates of publication, and this one doesn’t provide a date of publication, which is probably why I overlooked it.