Epic Measures

Epic Measures Plot Summary

Introduction

In the scorching heat of the Sahara Desert in 1973, a ten-year-old boy studied a French colonial map as his family's Land Rover approached a fork in the dusty track. This seemingly ordinary moment of navigation would shape Chris Murray's lifelong mission to map the world's health with unprecedented precision. The journey from those early experiences in Africa to revolutionizing how we measure global health represents one of the most consequential yet underappreciated transformations in modern medicine. Before this revolution, countries tracked health statistics with wildly inconsistent methods, international organizations lacked standardized approaches to quantify suffering, and billions in health aid were allocated based more on advocacy and politics than evidence. This remarkable story reveals how a small group of determined researchers challenged conventional wisdom about global health priorities and created new tools to measure human suffering in all its forms. Through their development of metrics like the disability-adjusted life year (DALY), they made visible what had previously been hidden - showing that mental health, back pain, and traffic injuries caused enormous suffering worldwide yet received minimal attention. Their work transformed how governments, international organizations, and philanthropies allocate resources, ultimately saving millions of lives by directing attention to overlooked health challenges. For anyone interested in global health, public policy, or how measurement itself can drive social change, this historical journey offers profound insights into how rigorous data can overcome political resistance and reshape our understanding of human wellbeing.

Chapter 1: The Saharan Origins: From Personal Tragedy to Global Vision (1970s-1980s)

The journey to revolutionize global health measurement began in the harsh landscape of Niger in the early 1970s. Ten-year-old Chris Murray traveled with his physician parents who had left their comfortable Minnesota home to run a clinic in Diffa, one of the poorest regions on Earth. What the Murray family discovered upon arrival was shocking: a modern-looking hospital building with no electricity, no water, and almost no medical supplies. Young Chris witnessed firsthand how children his age died from malnutrition, dehydration, and preventable diseases, experiences that would profoundly shape his worldview and future mission. During these formative years, the Murrays made a startling discovery that challenged conventional medical wisdom. They observed that malnourished patients admitted to their hospital mysteriously developed malaria at alarming rates. John Murray hypothesized that the iron in nutritional supplements was feeding the malaria parasites, an insight that led to the family's first scientific publication in The Lancet in 1975. This early lesson taught Chris that received knowledge could sometimes kill, while scientific rigor could save lives - a principle that would guide his future work in global health measurement. Throughout the late 1970s and early 1980s, the field of global health statistics was virtually nonexistent. Countries tracked their own health data with wildly inconsistent methods, and international organizations lacked standardized approaches to quantify suffering worldwide. After studying at Harvard and Oxford, Murray began questioning fundamental assumptions about global health data. His critical review of international mortality statistics in 1987 revealed shocking inconsistencies - the United Nations and World Bank often published wildly different life expectancy estimates for the same countries, sometimes varying by as much as fifteen years. Many figures were simply fabricated or based on outdated formulas. The prevailing wisdom during this period, championed by scholars like Thomas McKeown, suggested that economic development, not medical interventions, drove health improvements. Yet Murray's research in countries like Costa Rica, Sri Lanka, and Kerala challenged this notion, showing that even low-income regions could achieve remarkable health outcomes through targeted public health measures. This insight would later inform his approach to measuring health system performance - looking beyond wealth to identify what truly made populations healthier. By the late 1980s, Murray had developed an unusual combination of skills: medical knowledge, statistical aptitude, and firsthand experience with global health challenges. His collaboration with tuberculosis expert Barry Bloom revealed how inadequate data led to neglected health crises, with Murray's groundbreaking 1990 paper showing that tuberculosis was killing far more people than officially reported. These experiences established Murray's fundamental approach to global health: question everything, gather comprehensive data, and follow the evidence wherever it leads. This pioneering period established the intellectual groundwork for what would become the Global Burden of Disease study. It represented a fundamental shift in thinking - from counting deaths to measuring health in all its dimensions. The approach would eventually transform how governments, international organizations, and philanthropists allocated resources, bringing scientific rigor to decisions that had previously been driven largely by advocacy, politics, and incomplete information.

Chapter 2: Inventing DALYs: The Revolutionary Health Measurement (1990-1993)

The early 1990s marked a pivotal moment when global health measurement moved from academic theory to influential policy tool. In 1991, the World Bank commissioned a comprehensive review of disease control priorities in developing countries, led by economist Dean Jamison. This initiative sought to identify the most cost-effective health interventions for low-income countries. The Bank, traditionally focused on economic development, was increasingly recognizing health as both a humanitarian concern and an investment in human capital that could yield economic returns. Murray and his Australian colleague Alan Lopez were recruited to develop a new metric that could compare the impact of different diseases across populations. Their revolutionary innovation was the disability-adjusted life year (DALY), which combined years of life lost to premature death with years lived with disability. This elegant solution allowed direct comparison between fatal conditions like heart disease and non-fatal but debilitating conditions like depression or blindness. The DALY represented a philosophical shift - acknowledging that health was about more than just survival, and that quality of life mattered alongside quantity of life. The development of the DALY required addressing profound ethical questions. How should we value a year of life at different ages? How much weight should be given to future health compared to present suffering? Murray and Lopez made explicit value choices - incorporating age-weighting that valued young adult years more highly and discounting future health benefits - decisions that would later spark intense debate. They also pioneered disability weights, numerical values between 0 and 1 that quantified the severity of non-fatal conditions, determined through surveys of health professionals worldwide. The culmination of this work was the landmark 1993 World Development Report titled "Investing in Health." Released with unprecedented fanfare for a technical document, it presented the first Global Burden of Disease study, covering over 100 diseases and injuries across eight world regions. The report revealed surprising findings: while communicable diseases dominated in poor countries, non-communicable conditions like mental health disorders caused significant suffering worldwide yet received little attention. The study showed that simple, cost-effective interventions could dramatically reduce disease burden in developing countries. The report's impact was profound and far-reaching. It introduced a new vocabulary for discussing global health priorities and provided an evidence-based framework for resource allocation. For the first time, policy makers could compare the burden of malaria with depression, or tuberculosis with traffic accidents. The World Bank advocated for a basic package of essential health services that countries could implement for as little as $12 per person annually. This represented a radical departure from previous approaches that emphasized expensive hospital-based care over primary health services. Bill Gates would later cite this report as the catalyst for his entry into global health philanthropy. After reading that rotavirus killed half a million children annually - a disease he'd never heard of - Gates was stunned that such preventable suffering received so little attention. The report's influence extended beyond its technical innovations, helping to reshape how leaders thought about health investments. The DALY concept would prove as revolutionary to health measurement as the first accurate maps were to navigation - bringing the whole world together in one comprehensive view.

Chapter 3: WHO Confrontation: Politics vs. Science in Geneva (1998-2003)

In July 1998, Chris Murray arrived at the World Health Organization headquarters in Geneva to begin a new chapter in his career. The newly elected Director-General, Gro Harlem Brundtland, had recruited him to lead a revolutionary effort: creating the WHO's first-ever policy unit focused on gathering and analyzing health data from around the world. At age 35, Murray was now a highly visible figure in the most powerful health organization on the planet, with a mandate to transform how the WHO approached health measurement and policy. The WHO Murray encountered was an institution in crisis. Critics described it as "unfocused, even corrupt, and overrun by middle-level management." Its approach to health statistics was particularly problematic - the organization often simply published whatever numbers member countries submitted, with little verification. When Murray announced that the WHO would now make its own official estimates of illness, injury, and death worldwide, he was effectively declaring war on decades of institutional practice. His vision was ambitious: the WHO would become a center for sophisticated data analysis, replacing rosy health summaries from member governments with figures drawn directly from vital records, hospital files, household surveys, and demographic assessments. The culmination of Murray's efforts came with the 2000 World Health Report, which introduced the first-ever rankings of national health systems. France topped the list, while the United States ranked a surprising 37th, between Costa Rica and Slovenia. The rankings made global headlines and sparked fierce debate. "U.S. Spends More Than All Others, but Ranks 37 Among 191 Countries," headlined The New York Times. The report measured not just health outcomes but also responsiveness to citizens' expectations and fairness in financial contributions. For the first time, countries could see how their health systems performed relative to peers with similar resources. The political backlash was severe and immediate. Health ministers whose countries received low rankings were furious. José Serra, Brazil's health minister who was running for president, claimed his country's poor ranking (125th) was political sabotage and worked to get Murray fired. U.S. conservatives condemned the report as promoting socialized medicine, while some developing nations saw it as imposing Western values. The technical complexity of the rankings made them difficult to explain to the public, yet their simplicity as a numbered list made them impossible to ignore. "That's the price of a policy unit," observed Barry Bloom, a longtime WHO adviser. "Once you start pontificating, you have one hundred and ninety-one people who may not be happy about what you're saying." Despite the controversy - or perhaps because of it - the report transformed how countries approached health system reform. Mexico's Health Minister Julio Frenk used his country's poor ranking to build political support for a major healthcare overhaul that would eventually cover 52 million previously uninsured Mexicans. Thailand, Iran, and other middle-income countries launched their own burden of disease studies to better understand their specific challenges. The rankings created accountability and competitive pressure that motivated governments to improve their health systems. By 2003, however, political backlash had taken its toll. The WHO distanced itself from the rankings, with some staff publicly disavowing the methodology. Murray's position became increasingly untenable as institutional resistance mounted. When WHO Director-General Lee Jong-wook took office in 2003, the organization shifted priorities away from the controversial metrics. The day before Lee took office, Murray was informed he would be removed from his position. The burden-of-disease team was slashed from twenty-two staff members to two. Murray was shunted from his executive director's office to "a little cubbyhole on the way to the cafeteria." At age forty, the man who had revolutionized global health measurement was given the role of "adviser" with nobody to advise. The WHO episode demonstrated both the power and limitations of global health metrics. The rankings had catalyzed unprecedented attention to health system performance, yet also revealed the political sensitivities inherent in comparative assessments. The experience illustrated how data could drive reform when it created transparency and competition, but also how institutional constraints could limit the impact of even the most rigorous scientific work. Murray's confrontation with the WHO would ultimately lead to a new approach to global health measurement - one that maintained scientific independence while engaging constructively with countries and international organizations.

Chapter 4: From Crisis to Opportunity: The Birth of IHME (2003-2007)

After his unceremonious demotion at the WHO, Chris Murray returned to Harvard in September 2003 as director of the new Harvard Initiative for Global Health (HIGH). Though personally bruised by his experience in Geneva, Murray remained committed to his vision of comprehensive, independent health measurement. "It was very hard being tossed out of the WHO," he admitted. "I was just grateful to have something meaningful to do." This period coincided with unprecedented growth in global health funding, with resources flowing from new sources like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, and PEPFAR (the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief). At Harvard, Murray assembled a small team to continue his health measurement work, but funding was piecemeal and fragmented. The National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism gave them $250,000 to measure the burden of alcoholism in the United States. The National Institute on Aging provided $7.3 million to study older adults worldwide. These were good projects, but too fragmented for Murray's taste. "It wasn't the Global Burden of Disease," his colleague Emmanuela Gakidou observed. "There wasn't this idea that we'd have core funds and every year produce these metrics." Meanwhile, Murray's approach was proving transformative in countries that adopted it, with Mexico using burden-of-disease analysis to design Seguro Popular, a national health insurance program, and Iran implementing comprehensive road safety reforms after discovering traffic accidents were their leading preventable cause of health loss. In 2004, Murray's fortunes seemed to change dramatically when he met Larry Ellison, founder and CEO of Oracle. Impressed by Murray's vision for an independent health metrics institute, Ellison verbally committed $115 million in initial funding, followed by $50 million annually. The Ellison Institute would be "the largest gift in Harvard's history," reported The Wall Street Journal in June 2005. Murray and his team began hiring staff and planning for a January 2006 launch. Then disaster struck. Months passed without Ellison sending any money. After nearly a year in limbo, the Oracle CEO publicly announced he was withdrawing his commitment, blaming the recent resignation of Harvard president Larry Summers. "The bottom line is, he welched on his promises," Murray said bitterly. The Ellison Institute was over, and Murray had to dismiss everyone he'd hired. This devastating setback might have ended Murray's dream permanently, but an unexpected opportunity emerged. In June 2006, while still reeling from Ellison's withdrawal, Murray joined his friends Jim Kim and Paul Farmer for a meeting with Gates Foundation leaders in Seattle. Though the foundation declined to fund Kim and Farmer's Rwanda project, they were intrigued by Murray's pitch for health metrics. "You need some money," Patty Stonesifer, the foundation CEO, told him bluntly. This meeting coincided with Bill Gates's decision to transition from Microsoft to full-time philanthropy. Gates had been profoundly influenced by the 1993 World Development Report featuring Murray and Lopez's original Global Burden of Disease study, which had revealed to him that millions were dying from preventable diseases he'd never heard of. After months of negotiations, the Gates Foundation formally decided in January 2007 to fund a new independent institute, based in Seattle, attached to the University of Washington, led by Chris Murray. They promised $105 million - contingent on $20 million in additional support from the state of Washington. By midspring 2007, the state legislature had appropriated the money and the university regents had approved the project. "There was a window there when the whole Global Burden construct could have died," Murray reflected later. "He [Bill Gates] took time to realize, if he wanted it, he'd have to fund it." On July 1, 2007, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) began operations with $125 million in initial pledges and three employees: Murray, Emmanuela Gakidou, and Rafael Lozano. The journey from WHO to Harvard to Seattle reflected the challenges of institutionalizing scientific work with political implications. Murray's quest for independence illustrated how global health metrics required both scientific rigor and institutional autonomy to fulfill their potential. The establishment of IHME represented a new model - a university-based institute with philanthropic funding that could produce global public goods while maintaining academic standards and independence from political pressures.

Chapter 5: Mapping Global Suffering: The Burden of Disease Revolution (2007-2012)

When the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) opened its doors in July 2007, Chris Murray faced the monumental task of building a world-class research organization from scratch. His vision was audacious: to create the most comprehensive picture of global health ever attempted, tracking every major disease and injury, for every age group, in every country on Earth. This would require not just gathering existing data, but developing entirely new methods to fill the enormous gaps in our knowledge about human health and suffering worldwide. Murray assembled an interdisciplinary team that reflected the global nature of their mission. Haidong Wang, a Chinese demographer, would estimate when everyone in every country had died since 1970. Rafael Lozano, who had led Mexico's burden-of-disease study, would determine causes of death worldwide. Mohsen Naghavi, who had conducted Iran's burden studies, would coordinate more than thirty outside expert groups. Alan Lopez partnered closely from his position at the University of Queensland in Australia. The team also included thirty-two research fellows, recent college graduates with a talent for data analysis who signed up for two- or three-year stints. "The goal is to get the people who would go to Google or Goldman Sachs," Murray said, "but who want to actually make an effect in the world." The data gathering effort was unprecedented in scope and ambition. For approximately 75% of the world's deaths, no reliable cause was recorded in any official system. Peter Speyer, a former media executive from Germany, led a team of data indexers who scoured the world for information. They collected hospital records, household surveys, census data, and "verbal autopsies" (interviews with family members of the deceased). In Nigeria, they surveyed hospitals, police stations, health clinics, libraries, colonial archives, and cemetery records. In Iraq, during the American occupation, they tracked down government household surveys that would help estimate war-related deaths. "She burned it onto a CD and told me I had to pick that up in the Baghdad Green Zone," Speyer recalled of one Iraqi official. The new Global Burden of Disease study would be vastly more ambitious than its predecessors. Where earlier versions had tracked approximately 100 health problems for one year in eight global regions, Murray now wanted to tally 291 ailments and 67 risk factors by age and sex in 187 countries, charting trends over decades. The team also developed innovative methods to assess the impact of specific risk factors - from smoking to high blood pressure to diets low in fruits - by comparing actual conditions to an ideal baseline of perfect health. The computational requirements were staggering - at times, a single analysis would require five hours of supercomputer processing. As the project progressed, IHME began publishing preliminary findings that challenged established wisdom. In 2010, they concluded that maternal mortality had dropped by more than a third worldwide - contradicting the long-held belief that deaths in childbirth had remained stubbornly high despite global efforts. Some women's health advocates tried to pressure The Lancet into delaying publication, fearing good news would reduce funding for their cause. Similar controversies erupted when IHME estimated that malaria killed twice as many people - 1.2 million in 2010 - than previously reported by the WHO, and when they counted 650,000 fewer child deaths than a rival research group. "There are systematic biases built in," Murray argued, suggesting that some researchers might inflate death counts to attract more funding. "Deaths are money." By early 2012, nearly five years after Murray, Gakidou, and Lozano had arrived in Seattle, the project had grown into a truly global collaboration: fifty full-time faculty and staff at IHME, nearly five hundred co-authors in fifty different countries, and regular consultations with decision makers on six continents. The team was racing to process the entirety of their research for final analysis, with Murray obsessing over every detail. "If we have cholera in countries that don't have cholera, we'll be killed," he warned his colleagues, referring to the need for absolute accuracy. The stakes were enormous. As the journal Science noted in June 2012: "Global health estimates help determine where billions of dollars in health funding goes. Campaigners use them to justify public health spending on certain causes, such as measles immunization campaigns or AIDS prevention. The numbers also help measure whether a campaign has made any difference."

Chapter 6: Beyond Death Counts: How Metrics Reshaped Health Priorities (2012-Present)

On June 21, 2012, Chris Murray stood before the IHME board of directors to present the complete findings of the new Global Burden of Disease study. The room was packed with global health luminaries, and for almost four hours, Murray revealed a series of startling insights that would transform our understanding of global health. The first major finding was that people everywhere were living longer. Global life expectancy in 2010 - 67.5 years for men, 73.3 years for women - was about as long as it had been for only the very best-off in 1970. This progress was most dramatic for children: those under age ten were 60-70% less likely to die in 2010 than in 1970, representing almost 20 million lives saved annually. But the picture changed dramatically for older teens and young adults, particularly men. Between ages 15-79, women worldwide were at least 35% more likely to survive in 2010 compared to 1970, but for men aged 25-35, gains were as little as 15%. The culprit? Injuries - both accidental and intentional. Road traffic accidents, fires, falls, drowning, violence, and suicide killed more than 1.2 million young people annually. Unlike other killers that had received massive global attention, injuries remained largely overlooked by policymakers. "Why don't we have a UNICEF for men and women, ages twenty-five to thirty-five?" Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, would later ask. "Why don't we have Millennium Development Goals for middle age?" Even more revolutionary was the study's comprehensive assessment of disability - all the non-fatal conditions that cause suffering without killing. The top causes of years lived with disability worldwide in 2010 were low back pain, major depressive disorder, iron-deficiency anemia, neck pain, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. None of these conditions were priorities in global health programs, yet they caused enormous suffering. Women, the study revealed, lived longer than men but suffered more disability at every age. The average 40-year-old woman lost 48.5 days of healthy life to disability in 2010, compared to 44.5 days for a 40-year-old man. This disadvantage was significant and not limited to conditions related to childbearing. The study also identified the fastest-growing health threats. Of the ten conditions increasing most rapidly worldwide between 1990 and 2010, only one - HIV/AIDS - was related to the Millennium Development Goals that had guided global health investments. At least six - glaucoma, macular degeneration, cataracts, peripheral vascular disease, Alzheimer's disease, and benign prostatic hyperplasia - primarily affected the elderly. All had increased by at least 80% over two decades, yet received little attention from global health programs. Perhaps most provocative was the study's assessment of risk factors - the behaviors and conditions that cause disease and disability. High blood pressure had become the leading global risk factor, followed by tobacco smoking and alcohol use. Household air pollution from cooking with coal, wood, and dung ranked fourth - more than five times worse for humanity than unclean water. The impact of these findings on global health policy was profound and far-reaching. The Gates Foundation explicitly based its funding strategy on burden of disease data, directing billions toward the highest-impact interventions. When the foundation discovered that rotavirus killed hundreds of thousands of children annually, it invested heavily in vaccine development and distribution. Similarly, when Global Burden data revealed the massive toll of household air pollution, organizations like the UN Foundation launched major clean cookstove initiatives. National governments increasingly adopted burden of disease approaches for their own planning. The United Kingdom used IHME data to identify its leading health challenges, prompting new initiatives targeting preventable mortality. Rwanda, after learning that household air pollution was its leading risk factor, implemented a national program to distribute clean cookstoves. The metrics revolution also transformed how countries measured their progress. Rather than focusing narrowly on economic growth, many began tracking healthy life expectancy - how long people could expect to live in good health. The data revealed that education, particularly for women, was more strongly associated with health improvements than income growth. Countries like Vietnam achieved better health outcomes than nations with similar income levels but less education. This insight shifted development strategies toward investments in human capital rather than just economic output. By 2015, the United Nations had incorporated many of these insights into the Sustainable Development Goals, which expanded beyond the narrow focus of the Millennium Development Goals to include non-communicable diseases, mental health, and injuries. Perhaps most significantly, the metrics changed how we understand the very nature of health challenges. The traditional division between "developed" and "developing" world health problems proved increasingly obsolete. Heart disease, depression, and back pain affected people everywhere, though their manifestations and treatments might differ. Traffic injuries killed more young adults than many infectious diseases, yet received a fraction of the attention. The metrics revealed that health transitions were occurring faster than expected, with many middle-income countries facing simultaneous burdens of infectious disease, non-communicable conditions, and injuries. This more nuanced understanding has led to more targeted, effective interventions that address the actual burden of suffering rather than outdated assumptions about what matters most in global health.

Summary

The transformation of global health through metrics represents one of the most consequential yet underappreciated revolutions in modern medicine. Throughout this journey, we've witnessed how the development of sophisticated measurement tools fundamentally changed our understanding of human suffering and its causes. The central tension that drove this revolution was between intuition and evidence - between what we thought we knew about global health priorities and what the data actually revealed. The creation of the disability-adjusted life year (DALY) allowed, for the first time, direct comparison between fatal and non-fatal conditions, between the suffering of different populations, and between diverse interventions. This common currency of health made visible what had previously been hidden, challenging conventional wisdom about what mattered most in global health. The metrics revolution offers profound lessons for addressing complex global challenges. First, measurement itself drives change - what gets measured gets managed, and the act of quantifying problems often catalyzes action to solve them. Second, evidence-based approaches can transcend political and cultural divides by creating a shared understanding of reality, even when that reality is uncomfortable. Third, institutional independence matters - the most influential health metrics emerged from settings that prioritized scientific integrity over political considerations. As we face mounting global challenges from climate change to emerging infectious diseases, the health metrics revolution provides a powerful model for how rigorous measurement, transparent methods, and independent analysis can transform how we understand problems and mobilize solutions. The ultimate measure of success is not in the metrics themselves, but in the millions of lives improved because resources were directed more effectively to reduce the burden of disease and disability worldwide.

About Author

Loading...

Jeremy N. Smith

Read more