“Dealey neglected to inform readers that our co-authored September 2006 Science article on "Death in Darfur" is the only peer reviewed scholarly estimate of mortality in Darfur to appear after the studies reviewed by the GAO report”.

Professor Hagan,

I think it is misleading to claim that your article in Science is the only peer-reviewed estimate. Certainly Science is a prestigious journal, but to imply that the GAO report was not a “review” by your academic peers or that a review by Science is somehow more rigorous than the GAO review, sells the quality of the GAO report short.

For the same reasons that the estimates in Science should be taken seriously, the CRED estimates should be held in higher regard than the CIJ and Reeves estimates.

“The British Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) recently ruled on a complaint against the Save Darfur Coalition and Aegis Trust regarding how the death toll in Darfur has been represented. ASA identified a ‘division of informed opinion’ on the mortality in Darfur and stated that the figure of 400,000 deaths should not have been used without qualification. Had even the wording been ‘up to 400,000 have died as a result of the violence in Darfur,’ there would have been little argument.

Some commentators however have misinterpreted the ASA ruling. One said that the ASA ruled that Save Darfur and Aegis breached standards of truthfulness; another that the ASA stated they exaggerated. The ASA did neither. It ruled that campaigners should be clear about the difference of opinion over the number of people murdered in Darfur - that either a range should be cited or the source of the figure referenced.”

Note also Dr Smith’s article on the Aegis Trust webpage.

* "[Dealey's] New York Times op ed falsely claims that Save Darfur was found to have ‘breached standards of truthfulness’ - Clause 7.1 of the British Advertising Standards Association - in reporting the death toll in Darfur."

I do not, in fact, specifically cite clause 7.1 in my op-ed. The ASA found Save Darfur violated two codes: "Division of Opinion" and "Matters of Opinion." I do not think it is in error to sum these up as breaching standards of objectivity and truthfulness. An opinion is an argument, not fact or truth. An egregious opinion is an argument that demands "robust substantiation" — which is precisely what the ASA requested from Save Darfur and obviously did not receive.

* "Sam Dealey further mislead New York Times readers by suggesting that a Government Accounting Report highly evaluated an estimate of 131,000 ‘excess’ deaths in Darfur. He neglected to indicate that the first sentence of this GAO report said, ‘The experts we consulted did not consistently rate any of the death estimates as having a high level of accuracy and noted that all of the studies had methodological strengths and shortcomings.’"

In fact, I wrote: "So how many are dead in Darfur? As the G.A.O. study notes, reliable numbers are hard to come by. But the estimate that garnered the highest confidence was the one from the Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters." That’s hardly misleading.

Dr. Hagan is correct to point out that the panel of experts regarded no study to be flawless in its accuracy. But as the remaining 70-odd pages of the report evidence, these experts also found more redeeming qualities in some studies than in others. The clear and convincing leader in this respect was CRED’s.

* "Dealey also neglected to report that the GAO seriously questioned an April 2005 State Department report which estimated that as few as 63,000 died in the Darfur conflict, saying ‘Further, many experts believed that the lower end of State’s estimate was too low and found that published documents describing State’s estimate lacked sufficient information about its data and methods to allow it to be replicated and verified by external researchers.’"

Dr. Hagan is again correct. I did not mention the State Department estimate. Neither did I write about Jan Coebergh’s, Eric Reeves’ nor the World Health Organization’s. But since Dr. Hagan raises the topic, it is worth mentioning that, in the G.A.O. study, the panel of Dr. Hagan’s peers consistently found State’s estimate of 63,000 to 146,000 excess deaths to be more reliable and sound than his own.

* Dealey neglected to inform readers that our co-authored September 2006 Science article on "Death in Darfur" is the only peer reviewed scholarly estimate of mortality in Darfur to appear after the studies reviewed by the GAO report. Science is among the most highly regarded journals in the world. He neglected to inform readers that our estimate was of a "range between 170,000 and 255,000 deaths."

In fact, in clear reference to his Science article, I wrote that "Dr. Hagan revised his estimate sharply downward" — in this instance, by more than one-third.

* Sam Dealey makes false and misleading claims in his op ed about genocide exaggeration.

I wrote that the exaggerated death tolls "hamper aid-delivery groups, discredit American policymakers and diplomats, and harm efforts to respond to future humanitarian crises." I firmly stand behind what I wrote — and from what I heard before and hear now, so too do the aid and diplomatic corps.

Dr. Hagan is right to be upset that his initial study for the Coalition for International Justice was panned by a panel of his peers. Rather than lash out at a journalist, he might ask Save Darfur why it did not do as he did: Back away from what appears to be a highly flawed study.

Should you take at face value the opinions of Sam Dealey, the author of the New York Times August 12 op ed, “An Atrocity That Needs No Exaggeration”? His New York Times op ed falsely claims that Save Darfur was found to have “breached standards of truthfulness” - Clause 7.1 of the British Advertising Standards Association - in reporting the death toll in Darfur. The British Association considered invoking this clause in response to a complaint by a Sudanese business group. The Association decided not to do so. Instead, it cited clauses about “divisions” and “matters of opinion.” It offered an “action” recommendation that Save Darfur in the future state its sources of opinions and claims. This was not a finding of “untruthfulness.”

Sam Dealey further mislead New York Times readers by suggesting that a Government Accounting Report highly evaluated an estimate of 131,000 “excess” deaths in Darfur. He neglected to indicate that the first sentence of this GAO report said, “The experts we consulted did not consistently rate any of the death estimates as having a high level of accuracy and noted that all of the studies had methodological strengths and shortcomings.” This included an earlier higher estimate of our own. We subsequently published a “floor estimate” in Science to address the kinds of concerns raised by the GAO, as described briefly below.

Dealey also neglected to report that the GAO seriously questioned an April 2005 State Department report which estimated that as few as 63,000 died in the Darfur conflict, saying “Further, many experts believed that the lower end of State’s estimate was too low and found that published documents describing State’s estimate lacked sufficient information about its data and methods to allow it to be replicated and verified by external researchers.” Dealey did not mention that for more than a year following this dubiously low State Department estimate, major news organizations downgraded their reports to say that “tens of thousands” had died in Darfur, a number that sounded uncomfortably similar to Sudanese President Al Bashir’s claim of ten thousand deaths.

Dealey neglected to inform readers that our co-authored September 2006 Science article on “Death in Darfur” is the only peer reviewed scholarly estimate of mortality in Darfur to appear after the studies reviewed by the GAO report. Science is among the most highly regarded journals in the world. He neglected to inform readers that our estimate was of a “range between 170,000 and 255,000 deaths.” The purpose of our Science article was to establish a figure below which no reputable news source would go in its reporting. Eric Reeves, who has worked this issue the longest and hardest, offers higher estimates, which should also be seriously considered.

We said in Science that “although we cannot overcome the limitations in the basic information, on the basis of the surveys available, we conclude that the death toll in Darfur is conservatively estimated to be in the hundreds of thousands rather than the tens of thousands of people.” We then emphasized that “it is possible that the death toll is much higher.” Since the September 2006 Science article was published, nearly all news organizations, including the New York Times, have adopted the 200,000 or greater figure. However, just the month before our Science publication, on August 23, 2005, the New York Times had reported the low ball “tens of thousands” figure.

Sam Dealey makes false and misleading claims in his op ed about genocide exaggeration. Would the New York Times have published his op ed without the false “truthfulness” attack on Save Darfur? We shouldn’t be debating Save Darfur’s truthfulness, we should be acting to end this genocide and to allow its survivors to rebuild their lives. The New York Times was seriously misled by Dealey’s false and misleading claims.