The roots of the Rind controversy
Submitted by Heather on November 20 1999 at 23:32:15
In reply to perhaps not so grim Submitted by F.O.D. on November 20 1999 at 21:29:32
|
"Heather last week gave a link saying that the scientific body which was to be responsible for reassessing the paper did in fact refuse to do so" Actually, for once it wasn't me :) – but here's the link: http://www.phillynews.com/inquirer/99/Nov/17/national/PEDO17.htm In addition, below is my old summary of the controversy. The end result was that the APA caved in publicly to the political forces, saying that it would take into account the social policy implications of research that it published in the future. But an internal APA memo that was posted on BC in June (and which looked authentic) showed that the APA leadership was privately satisfied that the peer review process had worked in this case. Which, I must confess, makes me even more contemptuous of the APA's public actions, even though I myself have been known to be a little too PRish. Anyway, as you say, Chris, it's a sad day when scientific research is shaped by political forces, however well-meaning (and it's clear that a lot of well-meaning people belong to these pressure groups). The "conservative groups," by the way, were pretty much every conservative group in the country once this news took hold (if you do a Web search on "Bruce Rind" and "APA," you'll see what I mean), but the organization which initially shouted the news was the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, which is the scientific group that backs ex-gay therapy. What is wonderfully ironic about this, of course, is that this controversy, which do so much to inflame opinion against minor-attracted adults, was started by a group associated with the only ministries that at present make any strong outreach to minor-attracted adults. That just goes to show, I think, how the conservatives can themselves be victims of politicization. Heather |