The Freemasons of Science!

I am obliged to Tim Lambert of Deltoid for the information that the authors of the Lancet essay on Iraq death rates have agreed to open access to their data upon which they reached their conclusions.  Hurrah, I thought, now perhaps we shall see some proper scientific method applied to those statistics so that we can have a more accurate measurement of the bleedin' obvious that a hell of a lot of people in Iraq are being killed.  Perhaps your reaction was the same as mine - in which case you, too, are a naive sucker!

There are two little conditions:

1:  "These data will be released on request to recognized academic institutions or scientific groups with biostatistical and epidemiological analytic capacity", or in other words, if you can't roll your trouser leg up, give the secret sign and swear the proper oath, you can get lost!

2:  " The data will be provided to organizations or groups without publicly stated views that would cause doubt about their objectivity in analyzing the data", or in other words, if you have failed to worship properly at our shrine, you heretic, you will be cast forth into darkness!

Science reports (subscription needed) that "Michael Spagat, an economist and expert on conflict studies at [...] University of London has been refused access".  The report continues "Spagat calls the policy "deeply flawed," adding, "If we do something dumb or nonobjective with the data, qualified people should be able to expose our stupidity." The decision also puzzles David Kane, a fellow at the Harvard Institute for Quantitative Social Science who has received the data set even though he says he posted comments on a Web log last fall that raised the possibility of fraud. Denying some critics access "is ridiculous," Kane adds."

A perceptive commenter on Tim Lambert's site called 'John A' wrote the following:

"Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it".  Where have I heard this before? Think, think."

An even more perceptive, intelligent and witty fellow, although modesty forbids that I should disclose his identity, then wrote this before going over Climate Audit for yet more forensic but depressing examples of scientific Freemasonry:

"John 'A', do you know, just like you, I think I have that deja vu feeling all over again, again! Semi-scientists, reluctant to release data, tight little groups who all agree with each other ... no, don't tell me ... it'll come to me in a minute ..."

I must again repeat my respect for Tim Lambert, a man with whom I would probably have difficulty agreeing the time of day.  Politically, I suspect, he would have considerable sympathy with the writers of the original report published in the Lancet, but he's unafraid to point up humbuggery where-ever it appears.

Comments

[dearieme]

Many years ago I had a few years of seeing "social science" data - and social scientists - close up. That's when I realised that, in that world, usually 'data' is the plural of bollock.

[David Duff]

That would be 'bollocks', as in 'loadsa'', I assume!

[N.I.B.]

I take it 'bollocks' is not on your list of banned words, then?