According to a study published in Lancet, official statistics from developing nations have overstated childhood immunization rates in recent years and the discrepancy may have triggered unwarranted payouts from a charitable organization.

Christopher Murray and colleagues compared government estimates for DPT (diphtheria, pertussus and tetanus) vaccine coverage with results obtained from door-to-door surveys in 193 countries over a 20 year period.

The more reliable survey data showed that DPT coverage increased 5% between 1999 and 2006 across 51 developing nations. Government accounts set the number at 9%.

Six countries exaggerated their gains at least 4-fold, according to the Washington Post. Ten others exaggerated by at least 2-fold.

The disparity occurs in the context of the new “pay for performance” strategy pioneered by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation through its $750 million grant to GAVI, the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations.

GAVI offers a cash reward of $20 per additional child immunized each year over the number immunized in a baseline year as documented by—you guessed it—government estimates.

Since 1999, 51 countries have received payments from GAVI under the Gates program. If study findings are confirmed, GAVI disbursed nearly twice as many reward dollars as it should have: $290 million vs. $150 million.

“Is there intent? We can’t say,” Murray told the Washington Post. “All we can say is that there is over-reporting, and the over-reporting occurs in the presence of financial incentives.”

GAVI has suspended its reward program pending further investigation.

“By early next year, we will modify, drastically change, or possibly put in place a new system of incentive performance,” GAVI’s executive director Julian Lob-Levyt told the Post.

Two Mondays ago the Big O introduced his energy and environment squad. Then he warned that climate change and the nation’s dependence on foreign sources of energy are tough problems even in good economic times.

Acknowledging that previous administrations failed to make a dent in these areas, the president-elect said “this time must be different.”

“This will be a leading priority of my presidency and a defining test of our time,” he added. “We cannot accept complacency, nor accept any more broken promises.”

Obama has asked Carol Browner, his newly minted White House coordinator for energy and climate, to take the lead on policy development for global warming and energy security. Browner had been President Clinton’s chief at the EPA.

Until the US gets a grip on its fossil fuel emissions, developing countries will never take the matter seriously. This includes China and India.

The Big O also tapped Nobel laureate Steven Chu to head Energy and tasked him to execute on his campaign promises including a cap-and-trade scheme to curb greenhouse emissions and investment in energy technology innovation.

That investment is likely to be dwarfed by energy infrastructure projects ticketed for the Big O’s stimulus package, meaning that Chu must have been quite busy over the holidays.

If someone accidentally pokes you in the eye, it hurts. But is it more painful if you believe he did it on purpose? Probably yes, according to the findings of a study in Psychological Science.

Kurt Gray and Daniel Wegner didn’t poke anyone in the eye, but they did set up a study calling for participants to receive electric shocks and then lured 43 students to participate with offers of course credit or cash.

At the beginning of the study, participants met their “partner,” who was casually introduced as another student but who was in fact in cahoots with the scientists.

Participants were then assigned several tasks including judging musical tones, matching colors, solving number problems and assessing discomfort levels in response to an electric shock. 

The scientists cared only about the latter.

In this task, the student receiving the shock was asked to rate the pain on a 7-point scale, in which 1 meant no discomfort and 7 meant child birth. According to the study design, this rating took place just after scientists gave participants a rather key piece of information.

Half the time, the scientists informed participants that their study partner signed them up for the shock test. The rest of the time, scientists told the participants their partner chose a non-shocking task for them but the trial design called for the decision to be reversed and the shock to be administered.

Students rated the pain they thought was administered intentionally as a 3.62. They rated the unintentionally administered pain at 3.00.

As well, pain associated with shocks perceived to be unintentional decayed with time, but there was no attenuation when the pain was perceived to be deliberate.