The Lancet and The 600,000
| 11:00 UK time, Wednesday, 11 October 2006
We've just interviewed Dr. Richard Horton, editor of the medical journal The Lancet. His journal has just published an estimate for the number of civilians killed in Iraq since the 2003 invasion that greatly increases the death toll.
He told us that using door-to-door interviews with families across Iraq, based on population rather than level of violence, this new survey puts the figure above 600,000.
The margin of error puts the lowest figure at more than 400,000.
President Bush said in December last year that the figure had reached 30,000.
You have to make up your own mind who to believe - or if the number matters when the level of violence is obviously far too high whatever the real figures.
What's also intriguing about the latest estimate, though, is the place of publication.
The Lancet began publication in the early 1823, and built a reputation as a source for original research, seminar reports and reviews of medical publications.
It would expect to be associated with the adjective 'respected'.
Under its latest editor, Dr. Richard Horton, it has been taking stands on issues that have medical implications but which are also politically charged.
Here is Dr. Horton at an anti-war rally in London in September this year, condemning what he calls
Two years ago, Dr. Horton and The Lancet were forced to retract an article which fueled popular disquiet about the combined vaccine for children called MMR. Tabloid newspapers took up the campaign by Dr. Andrew Wakefield, a former colleague of Dr. Horton, that MMR was linked to autism.
Many parents became deeply worried. That campaign received more attention following publication of the research in The Lancet.
Here's how The Sunday Times in London reported the retraction in February 2004.
"The reputation of Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, has been tied to that of Andrew Wakefield ever since the controversial study on MMR was published six years ago. He ran his old colleague’s research to the surprise of some experts. Last week, after being shown the evidence of The Sunday Times investigation [that the link between MMR and autism had not been proved and Dr. Wakefield had not admitted a conflict of interest] he admitted publishing was a mistake. He was apparently so startled by our findings that he immediately went public, despite an agreement that he was shown them in confidence."
Dr. Horton told the British Medical Journal:
"I was terribly and, looking back now, embarrassingly naive...
"All in all, my attitude was far too laissez faire. If this is what critics meant—and still mean—by reckless, then I am guilty of that charge. I failed to do enough to manage the media reaction to this work. Until the Wakefield paper, I had not seen this media management role as one for a scientific medical journal editor. I now see it as one of my main responsibilities."
Apparently media management is now a skill with which Dr. Horton is becoming more confident, judging from the timing of this latest set of Iraqi casualty figures less than a month before the US mid term elections.
Comments