The GMC hearing into the Roy Meadow business has started.
Counsel for the GMC has begun outlining the case against him.
It is interesting to compare Press reports of how this was
stated. Compare the Guardian:
http://society.guardian.co.uk/nhsperformance/story/0,8150,1511799,00.html
with The Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1663907,00.html
When I read the Guardian one, it seemed that the issues about
probability and statistics were being put in language exhibiting
much the same sort of fallacy as RM is alleged to have fallen into.
This was worrying: Lawyers themselves can get culottes as tordues
as anyone else when it comes to this sort of thing, and it seemed
to bode ill that Counsel, for the GMC itself, was on the wrong
foot (and, of course, very surprising in the circumstances).
However, the Times report of the proceedings expressed the issues
on what we can recognise as essentially the right lines, and I felt
more at ease.
The Roy Meadow hearing is a critical one for the credibility of
statistical evidence in general. Since the successful appeal by
Sally Clark especially, reinforced by the appeals of others
succeeding on similar grounds, the public (and other) perception
of the validity of statistics is at rock bottom.
Indeed, I have been in a Court where the leading of statistical
evidence was challenged on the grounds that "the Court of Appeal
in the Sally Clark case has ruled that statistics are inadmissible
as evidence of a crime." (Which, I think, is not exactly the case:
the wording of the Court of Appeal was distinctly different, on
the lines of "should not be convicted on the basis of statistical
evidence alone" -- but it illustrates where the cat can jump to
once it is out of the bag.)
Without any intention to prejudge the GMC hearing, suppose for
the sake of argument that the outcome is that Roy Meadow misused
statistics, and gave erroneous statistical evidence.
Under that assumption, it is very important indeed that this
should be reported in a way which exhibits very clearly the
errors which led to such evidence being given, and how these
errors came about; and it is to be hoped that the hearing will
explore these things in detail. What one would like to see in
such a case is on the lines of
"Statistical information, properly acquired, properly understood,
properly considered, with conclusions properly expressed,
and properly informed by good understanding of statistical
principles, is sound within the limits of uncertainty implied
by the foregoing. Roy Meadow however got it wrong, and that
is the reason why *his* evidence, in *this* case, misled the
jury."
Otherwise, the effect will be a reinforcement of the belief that
"if you quote statistics you will get it wrong." This will not
only deprive society of the valuable contribution that good
statistics can provide, but will open the door for every sort
of evasion that can appeal to the unreliability of statistics:
politicians, in particular, will get away with damned lies on
the grounds that the statistics which might refute them are even
further out on the scale of untruth. An example in this direction
is the ministerial response to the "Lancet" report on Iraqi
civilian deaths -- see this list last November, thread "Cluster
Analysis", follow-up in December, thread "Iraqi civilian deaths".
I quote from my contribution on 9 November:
"However, the most malicious assault on the dignity of Statistics
yesteday came from Tony Blair himself:
"From Hansard (yesterday in the House of Commons):
In respect of the figure of 100,000 that has been
bandied about as the number of people who have died
in Iraq over the past period, I saw today, looking
at the figures in greater detail, that the figure is
extrapolated from the recorded deaths of 61 people.
When one sees that, one can understand how much
propaganda is coming through on the issue."
Therefore I am concerned that one should be able to read good
reports of the proceedings of the GMC hearing in re Roy Meadow.
My comparison of two respected newspapers above indicates that
one needs to be circumspect. As it happened, my statistical nose
led me to suspect the accuracy of the Guardian report, so I also
looked at The Times and saw what seemd to be a better one -- and
I very much doubt that the Guardian was an accurate report of an
erroneous presentation by Counsel, while the Times had re-written
what Counsel had said so that, statistically, it was more respectable!
Clearly, therefore, one would like access to a source which came
closer to verbatim reporting from the horse's mouth. Ideally, one
might look for this on the GMC website or Press releases, but I
don't think such information is made available "in real time".
Maybe we have to wait till it's over. If anyone knows different,
I'd be very interested to hear.
Incidentally, the GMC website
http://www.gmc-uk.org
which has been in a deep coma for several days, not responding
at all, as of last night opened its eyes and is able to respond
to a limited range of stimuli. However, it does seem that it will
be some days yet before it is properly up and about.
Best wishes to all,
Ted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <[log in to unmask]>
Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861
Date: 22-Jun-05 Time: 11:42:44
------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
*******************************************************
|
