The British Medical Journal The Lancet has finally confirmed the findings of the study it published August 31, 2006, Human Rights and Other Criminal Violations in Port-au-Prince, Haiti: A Random Survey of Households. The survey documented what grassroots groups and independent human rights organizations had been saying for over two years: that Haiti's Interim Government and its paramilitary allies had been waging a war on Haiti's pro-democracy movement. Those who had been denying the other reports waged a campaign to discredit the Household Survey not by criticizing its findings, but by attacking the author (for more on the controversy, click here).

After an investigation by the Lancet and by Wayne State University, the Lancet concluded that it "has confidence in Kolbe and Hutson's findings as published" (see full article below). The journal did find that one of the authors, Athena Kolbe, should have disclosed that she had previously written on Haiti under the name Lyn Duff.

That lack of disclosure did not affect the findings of massive human rights violations against Haiti's pro-democracy movement in any way. But the attacks on Ms. Kolbe did succeed- as the Lancet noted, it "has obscured the message of Kolbe and Hutson's research and detracted from the real issue-the welfare of civilians in Haiti-to whom attention should now turn."



Copyright 2007 Elsevier Ltd
All Rights Reserved
The Lancet
Get text with graphics
February 3, 2007 - February 9, 2007
SECTION: Pg. 355 Vol. 369 No. 9559 ISSN: 0140-6736
LENGTH: 494 words
HEADLINE: Clarification: Human rights abuse and other criminal violations in Port-au-Prince, Haiti
BYLINE: Richard Horton a; William Summerskill a
BODY:

Human rights abuse and other criminal violations in Port-au-Prince, Haiti: a random survey of households was published online on Aug 31, 2006, and in print on Sept 2, 2006.1 Within days, The Lancet was informed that co-author Athena Kolbe had previously written about Haiti as a journalist under the name of Lyn Duff. Because Kolbe had worked as a volunteer at an orphanage in Haiti founded by President Aristide and had written sympathetically about Aristide after he was deposed,2 concerns were expressed about the paper's findings.

In response to credible allegations that one author's former activities might constitute an undisclosed conflict of interest, The Lancet began an inquiry.3 The authors' institution, Wayne State University (Detroit, Michigan, USA) was asked to investigate the matter, and the issue was referred to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Eileen Trzcinski, Professor and Interim Director of Research at Wayne State University School of Social Work, audited 100 questionnaires selected by computerised randomisation. Outcome details on the original handwritten records corresponded with the project's computerised database. The overall distribution of rapes and murders were re-analysed according to alleged perpetrators, and the results agreed with the published findings. Outcomes were then compared by political affiliation of the interviewer and for Kolbe's own data (as an interviewer). Again, there was no evidence of systematic bias. On the basis of this investigation, The Lancet has confidence in Kolbe and Hutson's findings as published.

COPE recommended that readers should be made aware that Athena Kolbe had published as a reporter under the name of Lyn Duff, and that failure to disclose a separate name, under which relevant material had been published and cited in her Lancet paper, constitutes an undeclared conflict of interest. The Lancet's position on transparent disclosure of potential conflicts of interest is in accordance with guidelines established by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.4 The Lancet has made this position prominently available to readers5 and to authors,6 and stated clearly that incomplete disclosures will be amended in a published statement in the Department of Error section, which will also be linked electronically to the publication in electronic databases. Such a correction for this study appears in today's Lancet.

To realise their full potential to benefit populations, research findings must influence practice. Intelligent debate is part of that process. The Lancet encourages genuine debate, and will always consider seriously allegations of scientific misconduct. It is unfortunate, however, that in this case much of the debate was aimed at exploiting historical divisions in Haiti. That process has obscured the message of Kolbe and Hutson's research and detracted from the real issue-the welfare of civilians in Haiti-to whom attention should now turn.

NOTES: AFFILIATION:
a The Lancet, London NW1 7BY, UK

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

References
1 A Kolbe, R Hutson, Human rights abuse and other criminal violations in Port-au-Prince, Haiti: a random survey of households, Lancet, Vol. 368, 2006, p. 864-873, .

2 L Duff, Jean Bertrand Aristide: humanist or despot? Pacific News Service March 2, 2004,  http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/43a/666.html, (accessed Dec 8, 2006), .
3 D Campbell, Lancet caught up in row over Haiti murders, Guardian, Sept 8, 2006,  http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1867372,00.html, (accessed Jan 24, 2007), .

4 International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: writing and editing for biomedical publication,  http://www.icmje.org, February, 2006, (accessed Jan 24, 2007), .

5 A James, R Horton, The Lancet, 's policy on conflicts of interest, Lancet, Vol. 361, 2003, p. 8-9, .

6 The Lancet, Information for authors,  http://www.thelancet.com/authors/lancet/authorinfo, (accessed Jan 24, 2007), .