AAPOR is the American Association of Public Opinion Research and it has recently ruled that Gr Gilbert Burnham was "In Violation of Ethics Code". By the time this had filtered to the wider media the headline had become "AAPOR slams researcher over Iraqi death survey". The story related to an article published in the medical journal the Lancet, in which Burnham estimated that death toll in Iraq was three times higher than previous estimates. This finding was very embarrassing for the US and UK Governments and was denounced by the politicians.
Anybody glancing at the study would be forgiven for thinking that Dr Burnham study has been criticized by AAPOR, and that he was a member of AAPOR.
However, Dr Burnham is not a member of AAPOR, and as such is not specifically bound by their particular codes, and the criticism is not about the report. The ethics ruling is because Dr Burnham, had not given AAPOR sufficient details, in their opinion.
More relevantly, Dr Burnham's study is being reviewed by his University, The John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. If Burnham is criticized by the relevant review, that is a serious matter.
However, if the review by the University validates Dr Burnham's study, we will be left to wonder at the merits of AAPOR's attack on him. Are AAPOR saying that all non-members should do their bidding? Or, are they saying that people who produce results embarrassing to the Government of US should be pursued?
There is also the question of whether Dr Burnham should have answered AAPOR's questions? I think the answer is simple, yes! By not answering the questions Dr Burnham does cast doubt on his research. Withing reason he should make his details available to inspection. However, by deciding to issue a statement that a non-member had broken their rules, AAPOR puts themselves in a partisan position, and against science, IMHO
AAPOR may claim that their press release was not intended to support the neo-cons, the US and UK governments, and those who attack objective science, but check out how their press release as been used:
American Thinker, on AAPOR calling the methodology shoddy
UPDATE!
I have just spotted an article in the New Scientist today that casts even more doubt on AAPOR and its motives. It points out that Burham has shared his data and survey details with other academics, including some members of AAPOR. So the public censure of Burnham can be seen more narrowly as being for not conforming to the wishes of the executive of an organisation he and his university is not a member of.
Comments