A provocative debate over Bill Easterly’s critique of The Gates Foundation’s questionable data reporting continues to incite controversy. Easterly’s assertion that the Gates Foundation cherry-picked data to validate the success of their malaria treatment and prevention programs has been met with mixed criticism. David Roodman’s post for the Center of Global Development challenges Easterly’s own vigilance in subjecting those who share his views with the same scrutiny as his adversaries. How does an organization’s need to show programmatic success in order to gather donor support compromise standards and best practices in data collection and analysis? Furthermore, are we biased toward judging those who agree with us less harshly, even in the name of scientific research? Let us know what you think!
Do We Hold Our Adversaries More Accountable?
- ←Previous post: Is the U.S. a Development Commitment-Phobe?
- →Next post: Halloween Has Come and Gone but USAID Remains Headless