Chance News 26
It is now proved beyond doubt that smoking is one of the
leading causes of statistics.
Reader's Digest (December 1961)
One of the naturalists had argued that On the Origin of Species was too theoretical, that Darwin should have just "put his facts before us and let them rest." In response, Darwin reflected that science, to be of any service, required more than list making; it needed larger ideas that could make sense of piles of data. Otherwise, Darwin said, a geologist "might as well go into a gravel-pit and count the pebbles and describe the colours." Data without generalizations are useless; facts without explanatory principles are meaningless.
Why Darwin Matters. The Case Against Intelligent Design. (page 1)
The following Forsooths were in the April 2007 RSS News:
Britain has been basking in the early onset of spring with temperatures almost twice as warm as the same time last year.Lucy Ballinger
12 March 2007
PHEW! Twice as warm as Corfu
It's not often we put Corfu in the shade weatherwise, especially at tis time of the year. But while the Greek holiday spot could only manage a paltry B8C (46F) yesterday, Britons basked in the sun as temperatures reached 16C (60F) yesterday.Stephen White
12 March 2007
He (Persi Diaconis) proved that it takes seven shuffles to perfectly randomize a pack of cards.
March 24-30, 2007, p 52
Contributed by Laurie Snell.
We were eleven people obtaining those 30.000 millions. I want the 11% that corresponds to me.A politician of Madrid in a phone dialogue recorded by the police.
20th October, 2006,
Contributed by Carlos Silva.
Keith Crank, Assistant Director for Research and Graduate Education, writes:
Here is a possible entry under Forsooths in Chance News. It comes from a
recent report of the Council of Graduate Schools, titled: Graduate Education The Backbone of American Competitiveness and Innovation. On page 22 of the document, it states, "..., while the majority of students who enter doctoral programs have the academic ability to complete the degree, on average only 50-60 percent of those who enter doctoral programs in the United States complete their degrees."someone among them would realize that 50-60% is a majority.
The report is available here. Given the members of the committee that prepared this report, you would think
From the San Francisco Chronicle, March 5, 2007 
'It just has to be your day'
$355 million Mega Millions jackpot has Californians dreaming big
I realize I don't have a chance, but nobody's got a chance. So the way I look at it, I have a 50-50 chance -- either I win it or someone else wins it," reasoned Barrie Green, 60, after buying a single ticket Monday afternoon at the Merritt Restaurant and Bakery near his home in Oakland.
Contributed by Alan Shuchat
A history of smoking in the US
The Cigarette Century: The rise, fall, and deadly persistence of the product that defined America
Allan M. Brandt, 600 pp.
Basic Books, 2007, Amazon $23.76.
Allen Brandt is Professor of the History of Medicine at Harvard Medical School, and a professor in the Department of History of Science at Harvard University. His book is a complete history of smoking in the U. S. It is divided into five chapters: Culture (how cigarettes came into the American culture), Science, (The Causal Conundrum), Politics, (The Surgeon General report), Law (The trials of Big Tobacco), and Globalization, (Exporting an Epidemic). While this book will clearly be the bible of smoking you might want to start with some related videos.
For an overall picture of the book you can watch here a lecture Brandt gave about his book.
For the story of the statistics we recommend first watching video 11 (ˇThe Question of Causation') of Against all Odds. Here the history of establishing that smoking causes lung cancer is given. (This is free but you have to sign in).
This video was made while the pioneers were still alive and it is great to see and hear their personal involvement. Here is sample: Doctor Dwight Harken is speaking:
Dr. Wyndor, then a student at St Louis under Dr Everts Graham, came to see me and said "Camel Cigarettes cause cancer of the lungs". I couldn’t believe it and, you know, you see what you look for and look for what you know -- and it never occurred to me that cigarettes caused cancer. So we went to see my patients and at that time I had quite a large practice. We discovered, to our amazement, that patients who had cancer of the lung were 17 times to 1 as apt to be to be two pack a day smokers . So here was a fact trying to tell us something.
In Brandt's book you will find more details about the contribution of Wyndor and Graham as well as well known statisticians such as Richard Dole, Bradford Hill, Jerome Cornfield and others. Brandt observes that many of the current methods for clinical trials had their origin in the attempt to show that smoking caused lung cancer.
Neather source discusses in any detail the reasons that the two famous statisticians Joseph Berkson in the US and R.A Fisher in the UK were not convinced that smoking caused lung cancer. Berkson explained his reasons in his article: Smoking and lung cancer: some observations on two recent reports. J Am Stat Assoc 1958;53:28-38.
Here he argues that causation cannot be concluded from statistical studies which do not deal with laboratory experiments, or placebo-controlled clinical trials. He is also concerned that the studies upon which causation is concluded found an association of smoking with a wide variety of other diseases including those for which, unlike lung cancer, there was no reason to expect and association. In addition he had reasons to believe that the studies were not as carefully carried out as he explained in an earlier paper Smoking and cancer of the lung, Proceedings of the Mayo Clinic, Vol. 34, No. 13, pp. 367 to 385.
The best way to understand Fisher's concerns about the claim that smoking caused lung cancer is to read the six articles he wrote about smoking and lung cancer. There are numbers 269, 270, 274,275,276, and 276A in Collected Papers of R. A. Fisher, Edited by J. S. Bennett, 1971-1974.
His first article is a letter to the British Medical Journal 2: 43, (1957) which states on p. 1418 that the hazards of cigarette-smoking "must be brought home to the public by all the modern devices of publicity." and on p. 1519, "in the presence of the painstaking investigations of statisticians that seem to have closed every loophole of escape for tobacco as the villain in the piece." Concerning the first statement he writes: "This is just what some of us with research interests are afraid of. A common 'device' is to point to a real cause for anxiety, such as the increased incidence of lung cancer, and to ascribe it in urgent tones to what is possibly an entirely imaginary cause. Concerning the second statement he writes "I believe I have seen the sources of all the evidence cited. I do see a great deal of other statisticians. Many would still feel, and I did about five years ago, that a good prima facie case has been made for further investigation. None think that the matter is already settled".
While Fisher agreed that http://www.childrens-mercy.org/stats/definitions/retrospective.htm retrospective studies] of Hill and Doll at other suggested that smoking was associated with lung cancer, he believed that more research was necessary to establish causation. He gives examples of further research that might be done. One of the Hill and Doll papers included a question about inhaling. It found fewer inhalers among the cancer patients than among the non-cancer patients. Fisher felt that this should be studied further. He remarks that if it could be shown that inhaling was in fact strongly associated with lung cancer, this would support causation but if not one could not accept the simple theory that smoking causes cancer. The second area of research he suggested was to see if there are genotypic differences between the different smoking classes. If so he says " we might expect differences in the type or frequency of cancer they display."
(1) Can a retrospective studies distinguish between "smokers are more likely to get lung cancer than non-smokers" and "those who get lung cancer are more likely to be smokers"? Does it matter?
(2) Fisher was a scientific consultant to the Tobacco Manufactures' Standing Committee set up in 1956 by the UK tobacco industry to assist research on the relationship between smoking and health and make this information available to the public. Berkson was a consultant for the similar US Council for Tobacco Research. Do you think that they were members of these organizations because they didn't believe that smoking caused cancer or they didn't believe that smoking caused lung cancer because they were members of the originations or neither?
The Numbers Guy
Annette Georgey recently wrote to the the Isolated Statisticians:
A friend just alerted me to a blog maintained by "The Numbers Guy," a columnist for the Wall Street Journal who writes about probability and statistics in the news. Although the WSJ online is available to subscribers only, the blog is available to all. It contains many great examples for the classroom, written in everyday English, such as the odds of a three-way tie in the TV game show "Jeopardy," understanding statistical significance in recent hormone studies, the Texas lottery, and more.
And don't forget statistician Andrew Gelman's wonderful Blog Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science
Submitted by Laurie Snell
Lies, Damned Lies, and Drug War Statistics
A Critical Analysis of Claims Made by the Office of National Drug Control Policy
Matthew B. Robinson, Renee G. Scherlen, Renee G. Scherl
State University of New York Press, 2007
From the Back Cover:
This book critically analyzes claims made by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), the White House agency of accountability in the nation's drug war. Specifically, the book examines six editions of the annual National Drug Control Strategy between 2000 and 2005 to determine if ONDCP accurately and honestly presents information or intentionally distorts evidence to justify continuing the war on drugs.
The authors have performed a valuable service to our democracy with their
meticulous analysis of the White House ONDCP public statements and reports. They have pulled the sheet off what appears to be an official policy of deception using clever and sometimes clumsy attempts at statistical manipulation. This document, at last, gives us a map of the truth.
Author of Drug Crazy: How We Got into This Mess and How We Can Get Out
Robinson and Scherlen make a valuable contribution to documenting how
ONDCP fails to live up to basic standards of accountability andconsistency.Ethan Nadelmann
Executive Director, Drug Policy Alliance
At Appalachian State University, Matthew B. Robinson is Associate Professor of Criminal Justice, and Renee G. Scherlen is Associate Professor of Political Science. Robinson is the author of several books, including Justice Blind? Ideals and Realities of American Criminal Justice, Second Edition.
Submitted by John Finn
Excluding car bombs from a measure of sectarian violence
Optimistic Iraq report omits bombs killing civilians Nancy Youssef, McClatchy Newspapers, April 26, 2007.
In a story widely touted in the blogosphere, the U.S. report showing a sharp decline in sectarian violence in Iraq excluded any casualties associated with car bombs.
Car bombs and other explosive devices have killed thousands of Iraqis in the past three years, but the administration doesn't include them in the casualty counts it has been citing as evidence that the surge of additional U.S. forces is beginning to defuse tensions between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.
What's the rationale for this exclusion?
Experts who have studied car bombings say it's no surprise that U.S. officials would want to exclude their victims from any measure of success. Car bombs are almost impossible to detect and stop, particularly in a traffic-jammed city such as Baghdad. U.S. officials in Baghdad concede that while they've found scores of car bomb factories in Iraq, they've made only a small dent in the manufacturing of these weapons.
Critics of the Bush administration have another explanation.
"Since the administration keeps saying that failure is not an option, they are redefining success in a way that suits them," said James Denselow, an Iraq specialist at London-based Chatham House, a foreign policy think tank.
Submitted by Steve Simon