Slider
July 31st, 2005, 08:56 AM
Ignoring his treason, war-mongering, and smarmy-assed smirks, what really alarms me about Bush and his henchmen is their confusion of dogma-driven, unfounded propaganda for sound reasoning, and their willingness to foist it off as fact. We've see this when they use fabrication as justification to invade Iraq, when they ignore overwhelming evidence about global warming to oppose meangingful environmental policy, and when they plant fake journalists in press conferences so they can answer idiotic questions that no one is asking.
Getting away with this requires a mechanism to blunt the criticism of rational objection. Now, if they could somehow pervert the scientific approach of the American Academy of Scientists, or the American Medical Association, or the American Psychological Association, I am sure they would, and they're probably trying. But there's a much quicker, back-door approach: Set up your own "Academy" and use it to spew your ******** under a scientific mantle.
Today's Globe details some of these pseudo-scientific dream weavers, and how the Evil Administration is using them to justify unsound policy. Some appears below, more here:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/07/31/beliefs_drive_research_agenda_of_new_think_tanks (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/07/31/beliefs_drive_research_agenda_of_new_think_tanks)
Beliefs drive research agenda of new think tanks
Study on gay adoption disputed by specialists
By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff | July 31, 2005
WASHINGTON -- President Bush had a ready answer when asked in January for his view of adoption by same-sex couples: ''Studies have shown that the ideal is where a child is raised in a married family with a man and a woman," the president said.
Bush's assertion raised eyebrows among specialists. The American Academy of Pediatrics, composed of leaders in the field, had found no meaningful difference between children raised by same-sex and heterosexual couples, based on a 2002 report written largely by a Boston pediatrician, Dr. Ellen C. Perrin.
But Bush's statement was celebrated at a tiny think tank called the Family Research Institute, where the founder, Dr. Paul Cameron, believes Bush was referring to studies he has published in academic journals that are critical of gays and lesbians as parents. Cameron has published numerous studies with titles such as ''Gay Foster Parents More Apt to Molest" -- a conclusion disputed by many other researchers.
The president's statement was also welcomed at a small organization with an august-sounding name, the American College of Pediatricians. The college, which has a small membership, says on its website that it would be ''dangerously irresponsible" to allow same-sex couples to adopt children. The college was formed just three years ago, after the 75-year-old American Academy of Pediatrics issued its paper.
That pediatric study asserted a ''considerable body of professional evidence" that there is no difference between children of same-sex and heterosexual parents.
The Family Research Institute and the American College of Pediatrics are part of a rapidly growing trend in which small think tanks, researchers, and publicists who are open about their personal beliefs are providing what they portray as medical information on some of the most controversial issues of the day.
Created as counterpoints to large, well-established medical organizations whose work is subject to rigorous review and who assert no political agenda, the tiny think tanks with names often mimicking those of established medical authorities have sought to dispute the notion of a medical consensus on social issues such as gay rights, the right to die, abortion, and birth control.
For example, Cameron's Family Research Institute, with an annual budget of less than $200,000, tries to counter the views of the 150,000-member American Psychological Association, which has an annual budget of $98 million. The tiny American College of Pediatricians has a single employee, yet it has been quoted as a counterpoint to the 60,000-member American Academy of Pediatrics.
Senior Bush aides, asked for the basis of the comment about adoption, now say they are unaware of any studies comparing heterosexual and same-sex adoptions -- by Cameron or by any pediatric association. The president, they say, was probably referring to studies that show children are better off living with both biological parents -- though those studies have nothing to do with adoption by same-sex couples.
But Cameron said that he feels confident that Bush was referring to his work, and that he once briefed two White House aides on his research, which is widely distributed through the Christian Communication Network, a public relations firm run by an antiabortion activist, Gary L. McCullough, who also was the press agent for the parents of Terri Schiavo.
Indeed, a web search found that Cameron's findings had been repeated on a variety of conservative websites and blogs.
Cameron said he has made a deliberate strategy of getting his research published in peer-reviewed academic journals, which he considers more effective than merely writing opinion articles. Cameron said the credibility that goes with being published in the journals enables him to be cited in court decisions and to promote his views in public appearances. Peer review ''is the standard in the academic world," Cameron said. ''It means that other people have looked at what you've done and said, 'It's OK.' "
But Cameron's adoption study, and at least 10 more of his works, appeared in Psychological Reports, a small journal based in Montana, which says its studies are peer-reviewed, although editor Doug Ammons said: ''No reviewer has a veto right." The journal, which typically charges $27.50 per page to print an article, is portrayed by Ammons as a ''scientific manifestation of free speech."
By contrast, the largest professional journals, which are often cited as sources of medical information -- such as Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine -- say they will reject an article if any peer reviewer raises serious objections about its methodology. Those journals do not charge for publication.
Perrin, the Boston pediatrician, has watched these developments from a unique perspective. She was a lead author of the report by the American Academy of Pediatrics -- unanimously approved by its board of directors and its president and vice president -- that was supportive of same-sex parenting, and she has suggested repeatedly that articles by Cameron be rejected by medical journals.
She said she was startled that the American College of Pediatrics had been formed partly in response to her article, and said she is ''amazed" that Cameron continues to be published in peer-reviewed journals. Whenever she has been asked to review his work, Perrin added, she has found it obviously flawed in its methodology.
''Each time I have recommended to the editor that the manuscript not be published, because the science did not stand up to basic standards," Perrin said.
But as recently as June, two of Cameron's papers were published in Psychological Reports, garnering him more publicity.
Getting away with this requires a mechanism to blunt the criticism of rational objection. Now, if they could somehow pervert the scientific approach of the American Academy of Scientists, or the American Medical Association, or the American Psychological Association, I am sure they would, and they're probably trying. But there's a much quicker, back-door approach: Set up your own "Academy" and use it to spew your ******** under a scientific mantle.
Today's Globe details some of these pseudo-scientific dream weavers, and how the Evil Administration is using them to justify unsound policy. Some appears below, more here:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/07/31/beliefs_drive_research_agenda_of_new_think_tanks (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/07/31/beliefs_drive_research_agenda_of_new_think_tanks)
Beliefs drive research agenda of new think tanks
Study on gay adoption disputed by specialists
By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff | July 31, 2005
WASHINGTON -- President Bush had a ready answer when asked in January for his view of adoption by same-sex couples: ''Studies have shown that the ideal is where a child is raised in a married family with a man and a woman," the president said.
Bush's assertion raised eyebrows among specialists. The American Academy of Pediatrics, composed of leaders in the field, had found no meaningful difference between children raised by same-sex and heterosexual couples, based on a 2002 report written largely by a Boston pediatrician, Dr. Ellen C. Perrin.
But Bush's statement was celebrated at a tiny think tank called the Family Research Institute, where the founder, Dr. Paul Cameron, believes Bush was referring to studies he has published in academic journals that are critical of gays and lesbians as parents. Cameron has published numerous studies with titles such as ''Gay Foster Parents More Apt to Molest" -- a conclusion disputed by many other researchers.
The president's statement was also welcomed at a small organization with an august-sounding name, the American College of Pediatricians. The college, which has a small membership, says on its website that it would be ''dangerously irresponsible" to allow same-sex couples to adopt children. The college was formed just three years ago, after the 75-year-old American Academy of Pediatrics issued its paper.
That pediatric study asserted a ''considerable body of professional evidence" that there is no difference between children of same-sex and heterosexual parents.
The Family Research Institute and the American College of Pediatrics are part of a rapidly growing trend in which small think tanks, researchers, and publicists who are open about their personal beliefs are providing what they portray as medical information on some of the most controversial issues of the day.
Created as counterpoints to large, well-established medical organizations whose work is subject to rigorous review and who assert no political agenda, the tiny think tanks with names often mimicking those of established medical authorities have sought to dispute the notion of a medical consensus on social issues such as gay rights, the right to die, abortion, and birth control.
For example, Cameron's Family Research Institute, with an annual budget of less than $200,000, tries to counter the views of the 150,000-member American Psychological Association, which has an annual budget of $98 million. The tiny American College of Pediatricians has a single employee, yet it has been quoted as a counterpoint to the 60,000-member American Academy of Pediatrics.
Senior Bush aides, asked for the basis of the comment about adoption, now say they are unaware of any studies comparing heterosexual and same-sex adoptions -- by Cameron or by any pediatric association. The president, they say, was probably referring to studies that show children are better off living with both biological parents -- though those studies have nothing to do with adoption by same-sex couples.
But Cameron said that he feels confident that Bush was referring to his work, and that he once briefed two White House aides on his research, which is widely distributed through the Christian Communication Network, a public relations firm run by an antiabortion activist, Gary L. McCullough, who also was the press agent for the parents of Terri Schiavo.
Indeed, a web search found that Cameron's findings had been repeated on a variety of conservative websites and blogs.
Cameron said he has made a deliberate strategy of getting his research published in peer-reviewed academic journals, which he considers more effective than merely writing opinion articles. Cameron said the credibility that goes with being published in the journals enables him to be cited in court decisions and to promote his views in public appearances. Peer review ''is the standard in the academic world," Cameron said. ''It means that other people have looked at what you've done and said, 'It's OK.' "
But Cameron's adoption study, and at least 10 more of his works, appeared in Psychological Reports, a small journal based in Montana, which says its studies are peer-reviewed, although editor Doug Ammons said: ''No reviewer has a veto right." The journal, which typically charges $27.50 per page to print an article, is portrayed by Ammons as a ''scientific manifestation of free speech."
By contrast, the largest professional journals, which are often cited as sources of medical information -- such as Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine -- say they will reject an article if any peer reviewer raises serious objections about its methodology. Those journals do not charge for publication.
Perrin, the Boston pediatrician, has watched these developments from a unique perspective. She was a lead author of the report by the American Academy of Pediatrics -- unanimously approved by its board of directors and its president and vice president -- that was supportive of same-sex parenting, and she has suggested repeatedly that articles by Cameron be rejected by medical journals.
She said she was startled that the American College of Pediatrics had been formed partly in response to her article, and said she is ''amazed" that Cameron continues to be published in peer-reviewed journals. Whenever she has been asked to review his work, Perrin added, she has found it obviously flawed in its methodology.
''Each time I have recommended to the editor that the manuscript not be published, because the science did not stand up to basic standards," Perrin said.
But as recently as June, two of Cameron's papers were published in Psychological Reports, garnering him more publicity.