The leading UK medical journal, The Lancet, had published a study that showed a estimated 50% increase in mortality risk in the immediate post-invasion period (2003-2004). That translated into an estimate of 98,000 excess deaths.
Blair's spokesperson made a public announcement that the study "was not one we believe to be anywhere near accurate".
Today, Tim posted on his blog, Deltoid, a summary of reactions to that, now that we know his own advisors advised him against trashing the study, and he trashed it anyway.
I don't have much to add, but I do want to highlight one item in particular: The editor of The Lancet, Richard Horton, has published an editorial in a major UK newspaper. I don't know if this was his title, or that of the editors of the Guardian, but it sure is telling: A monstrous war crime. But the title is only the start. It is a blistering account of the incident.
The reason I am highlighting this in particular, is that it is unusual for the editor of a medical journal to take this step. Mind you, The Lancet is not normally thought of as progressive, or even political. It's a medical journal. One of the oldest and most respected in the world.
What Dr. Horton did, is to put the reputation of The Lancet up against the reputation of the British Prime Minister. That is not something to be done casually. He knows full well the implications of what he has done. He also knows that long after Blair has stepped down, The Lancet will still need to uphold its reputation in order for it to be an effective publication.
Of course, what he has done is exactly what most ScienceBloggers have been doing to George W. Bush for years. It's just that Seed Magazine does not have the impact factor that The Lancet does. And George W. Bush does not have the reputation that Tony Blair does.
Comments
Actually, in the UK Blair is generally regarded a serial fantasist capable of convincing himself to believe in anything, and he clearly goes into denial every time he hears the word 'Iraq'. Even the Labour party are desperate for him to quit.
Posted by: Jonathan Vause | April 3, 2007 4:34 AM
The Lancet might not be overly political, but Richard Horton is. He has spoken at a number of Stop the War Coalition marches, for example.
Posted by: SteveF | April 3, 2007 5:33 AM
Both Richard Horton and the Lancet are quite prepared to be controversial, and he openly states they he is prepared on occasion to publish with flimsy evidence. For example, the Lancet published Andrew Wakefield's 1998 MMR paper and Horton spent several years defending the decision. In 2004 Horton published an article on the Lessons of MMR regretting his decision including this sentence "A forum to raise new and sometimes unpopular thinking, even on the basis of of what at first sight appears to be flimsy evidence, is important.."
Posted by: Mark Frank | April 3, 2007 6:04 AM
I would say that there is nothing political about an MD speaking at an antiwar rally, any more than an MD going on a walk to raise funds for breast cancer research. War kills people, and it is a proper role for a physician to oppose unnecessary wars.
Calling a politicina to task for being dishonest goes beyond that.
I would agree that you cannot and should not believe that something is true, based upon the fact that it was published in a major journal. That is a basic principle in medicine: rarely should one change one's practice based upon any single journal article.
Note, however, that this particular post is not about whether the study is correct, or controversial, or based on flimsy evidence (which it is not). The point is that Blair's own advisors told him the article was valid, and he chose the politically comfortable position over the position that was supported by the evidence.
Posted by: Joseph j7uy5 | April 3, 2007 7:35 AM
Horton is well within his rights to speak at Stop the War Coalition events (generally organised by Socialist Worker), however this is undoubtedly a political act. For the editor of such a significant journal to do so, instinctively makes me uncomfortable. I prefer my science to be as politically independent as possible; I know this is a little naive, but there we are.
Here is what he had to say at a relatively recent protest:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7BzM5mxN5U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwLp5P_i53c
I just can't help but feel, irrespective of whether or not I might agree with him, that this is innapropriate.
Posted by: SteveF | April 3, 2007 8:30 AM
Huh? Why is this even an issue? Blair ignored his own people in a way that was consistent with his political goals. And this editor is being called out for speaking at an anti war demo? Am I not getting something here?
What's the editor to do? A study he published was challenged by someone who ends up having had access to some additional, corroborating information.
If a study really is later proved to be wrong, so be it. Sounds to me like he with drew at least one paper were the critique was legitimate. This is a problem, why?
Did he critique Blair in an editorial in the Lancet? The article does not say he did. Again, what is the problem? An editor defends a paper he published that's been publicly attacked by a powerful person who turns out to have had information that the study is, in fact /not/ incorrect?
Posted by: snart | April 4, 2007 6:19 PM