The Wall Street Journal-20080114-Lancet Iraq Study Authors Reply to Editorial
Return to: The_Wall_Street_Journal-20080114
Lancet Iraq Study Authors Reply to Editorial
Your editorial entitled, "The Lancet's Political Hit" (Jan. 9) reporting on the National Journal's criticism of our study of Iraqi deaths was a unique blend of error and innuendo. For example, I was not opposed to removing Saddam; I was opposed to invading a country while the U.N. Secretary General was stating that it would violate the U.N. Charter. Your suggestion that our Iraqi colleague Riyadh Lafta was suspect because he recorded child mortality during his career is particularly ironic. He was one of few professors in the country who never joined the Baath Party. You further suggest that because some of the second round of survey funding came from the Soros Foundation (unknown to the authors until last month) the results are suspect. In my work in eight war zones over the past two decades, I have seen the Soros Foundation bring heat and water to the beleaguered people of Sarajevo, bring the Internet to millions of people trapped in Eastern Europe, and help the victims of torture in Zimbabwe. Were those efforts devoid of merit?
A certain number of Iraqis died because of the invasion. We reported the death rate went up 2.5 fold, the Iraqi government now claims that it only doubled. Either way, hundreds of thousands have died and downplaying that fact is a disservice to your readers.
Les Roberts
Program on Forced Migration and Health
Columbia University
New York
---
Regarding your editorial on Iraq mortality data: At no time did I or my co-author, Les Roberts, say either the 2004 or the 2006 study release was timed to affect election outcomes. Mr. Roberts indicated that he wanted to promote discussion of the results, and I told the National Journal specifically that I was anxious that the 2006 study be released well before the election to dispel any notion of trying to influence outcomes.
The researchers received funds in a grant from MIT after the 2006 mortality survey was already underway, without any knowledge of its origins. MIT played no role in the design, implementation or analysis of the study. It is only last month that we learned that the Soros Foundation had contributed a portion of the funding to MIT.
Review of the paper for publication in the Lancet followed the standard peer-review process used by medical journals everywhere, with the authors supplying all information requested by the independent peer reviewers. The American researchers worked closely with Professor Riyadh Lafta, an Iraqi physician, in all stages of the project. The field work was carried out in accordance with standard procedures, though the conflict made the survey process much more difficult than most studies. Estimations of sample size and statistical power required for sampling were carefully worked out with demographers and statisticians before the study. From the beginning it was planned to provide other researchers with the study data, and this has been done, with restrictions to protect the participants, as required in the ethical approval process.
Mr. Lafta has asked that he not be contacted by the media out of concern for his safety and that of his family, a not-unreasonable request, given that doctors and academics are major assassination targets in Iraq. Serious questions about study details have been relayed to him and questions clarified. Mr. Lafta has had a successful university career, and over many years worked as a reliable and thoughtful partner with international research groups. For the World Health Organization he led a major polio inquiry in Iraq, and also examined unusual occurrences of cancer in southern Iraq with North American researchers.
Gilbert M. Burnham, M.D., Ph.D.
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
Baltimore
