U. of Texas Clarifies: Prof. Regnerus Not Being Investigated
Rod Dreher was contacted by the media office at the University of Texas with this update:
Last week’s blog posting by Rod Dreher contained information that was not accurate and that was drawn from a media report which has since been clarified by the publication.
There is no formal investigation into Dr. Regnerus’ work. Rather, there is an inquiry — any and all allegations of scientific misconduct against a faculty member automatically trigger such an inquiry, which is a preliminary fact finding exercise led by the Vice President for Research’s office. This is standard operating procedure. The purpose of the inquiry is to determine whether the allegations have merit and warrant a full investigation. Nearly 30 complaints of scientific misconduct have automatically triggered an inquiry over the past 15 years — very few have led to investigations. An inquiry implies no wrongdoing. It merely confirms that we received a complaint and take all complaints seriously.
Mr. Dreher asks “How is it that a blogger can write a letter to the president of the university lodging a very serious, potentially career-destroying professional complaint against a professor, and the university can turn around and effectively put the professor on trial?”
The answer, quite simply is “he can’t.”
24 Comments
Great news! So good to hear.
I'm confident this preliminary inquiry will result in the same way as did the majority of the 30 odd ethics complaints filed: 1) no full investigation; 2) Regnerus and everyone else moving on with life and further research.
Yes, this is quite different than the state ethics investigations into the activities of the national organization for marriage. Many of these are far beyond the initial inquiry stage.
Science and fact will prevail. SS"m" extremists would ban any fact finding they did not like.. The researcher is being persecuted like Galieo, simply for stating the truth.
Reformed (writes)
"this is quite different than the state ethics investigations into the activities of the national organization for marriage. Many of these are far beyond the initial inquiry stage"
What States are investigating NOM for "ethics" violatons??
Do tell?
Glad to hear it.
Nice to see UT standing up against the smear cam,pain.
I never needed a study to tell me kids need their Mom and Dad, but it is great that the homosexualist fascist thoughtcrime posse is eliciting yawns here.
M Jones" While romantic history is certainly conducive to your point, please be advised.
Every single proof Galileo advanced has been scientifically falsified.
The relevant development was referred to as the Special and General Theories of Relativity.
There. All that talk about “inquiries” and “formal investigations” and the like should put a many a cold feet under any other wise guy researcher, or man on the street, who might otherwise have felt inclined to pursue the subject.
There. Scare tactic well accomplished. Now lets move along to the next wise guy who might put into jeopardy the successful overtaking of the word marriage, (and so damper the emerging baby making business that will develop from it.)
Dirty, dirty, dirty. Same old, same old. And we find ourselves having to be thankful for not having been tortured while being imprisoned. What else can we do? So me too I say, “thank you for only a media inquisition into the character of this man and his work, and not a formal lynching.” How sweat. Job well done; you've put the subtle fear into a million hearts, through the poison of subconscious threat. Not much mind you; but just enough to silence a million tongues, and a million pens.
The rest of us will simply have to speak loader and clearer, and accept to live under a barrage of fear tactics and threats. What else can we do?
The Regnerus study is not valid, because Regnerus made no valid comparison between his "test" group and his "control" group. I am not alone in saying that. Over 200 Ph.D.s and M.D.s signed a letter sent to the journal that published Regnerus. Their letter makes plain; they think the Regnerus study lacks intellectual integrity. Additionally, an amicus brief filed by eight major professional organizations including the American Medical Association analyzed the Regnerus study, concluding that it is not scientifically valid, and that Regnerus's written study is not supported by his data. The AMA brief was filed in "response" to one filed by the religious right, anti-gay-rights splinter group "The American College of Pediatricians." The ACP brief relied heavily on the Regnerus study, but grossly misrepresented what the Regnerus study, invalid as it is in the first place, said. The AMA brief dissected and explained all of the ACP's misrepresentations of Regnerus, before going on to use meticulously precise language to explain that Regnerus's conclusions are not supported by his data. Ultimately, what determines scientific legitimacy in this has nothing to do with one's opinion of homosexuals and their rights; it has to do with whether Regnerus's science is sound. The ACP brief did not even correctly represent what is in the Regnerus study; and they misrepresented the Regnerus study, in a court document. And then they got schooled by major professional organizations representing hundreds of thousands of top professionals. Anybody interested in knowing what the real issues are, surrounding Regnerus, should read the letter from the 200+ Ph.D.s and M.D.s, and separately, the AMA brief.
Many journalists have made FOIA requests for documentation related to the Regnerus study. The University of Texas has sent letter to Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, asking for FOIA exemptions so as not to have to turn over the documentation. The letters that UT has sent to the Attorney General say that they need the FOIA exemption, because UT is conducting an "investigation" related to the Regnerus study. UT's letter using the word "investigation" can be read here:
http://tinyurl.com/772t9gr
@scott. thank you for pointing out the FOIA requests and the "investigation" . Obviously, there is some political play going on with this issue.
One can only imagine the number of angry letters the CDC received when it published its results on HIV/AIDS and concluded that it/they are overwhelmingly more prevalent in homosexual men than the rest of the population. But you can't fight the federal government.
The genuine way to rebut a research study's conclusions is to conduct a new study with data that supports a different conclusion. But the homosexualists have had such success with their recipe of political protest and infiltration that they have no incentive to design a valid study (which, they of course know would undoubtedly support Regernus' conclusions).
This poor Regenerus guy is taking a beating just as the leaders of the APA took a beating from the radical homosexual protests and the infiltration of homosexuals into the APA leadership when homosexuality was removed from the APA list of disorders.
Scott Rose said: "I am not alone in saying that. Over 200 Ph.D.s and M.D.s signed a letter sent to the journal that published Regnerus."
Wow, who would believe that the homosexualists were able to find 200 homosexual docs to sign a letter attacking a paper that does not glorify ss parenting? I'm shocked, SHOCKED.
Isn't the whole point of peer review and publishing in the scientific community designed to weed out studies of dubious methodology and conclusions? Of course it is. The paper made it through the process; letters disputing its results are all sour grapes.
FOIA requests? What does release of private communications or documents have to do with analysing this study?
Unbelievable.
"The ACP brief relied heavily on the Regnerus study, but grossly misrepresented what the Regnerus study, invalid as it is in the first place, said. "
If this is true, how is Regnerus or the University of Texas to blame for the misrepresentation?
I must insist, again,that NOM filter OvercameSSA's comments such as the one above accusing 200 scientists of being homosexual because they support an investigation Regenerus' study. His attacks are slanderous and bordering on illegal and will be called ouT if NOM does not filter them.
Illegal? That's Rich.
The only accusation the Scott Rose makes is that the Regnerus study uses “misinformation in an attempt to hurt others" & connects this to a vapid catch all in the student handbook.
Now he's over here trying to pretend that the most comprehensive study on gay parenting to date is somehow beyond the pale.
Rich, you need to get a grip, dude. Do you think anyone reading here actually believed that my statement was anything more than hyperbole? But if it makes you happy, I hereby revise my comment about the 200 docs who signed the letter as such:
"I would guess that the vast majority of the 200 docs who signed the letter were homosexuals, though I have no factual evidence of such. I don't believe that the research was flawed, and so I believe that the only people who would have an interest in attacking this non-flawed study are homosexuals, because only they have an interest in the outcome."
You know what's funny? The fact that your claims of slander would be based on the possibility that some of the docs who signed the letter were not homosexuals and would be offended by being called one. How ironic that one who supports homosexual rights would raise such an issue. Why do you think the non=homosexual docs would be offended? What if I claimed all the signers had brown eyes - would you think that was slanderous, too?
Stop hijacking the threads to try and silence me, Rich.
OvercameSSA - I think Rich was complaining about your blanket attemp to smear the 200 experts. I personally don't think being called homosexual is an insult - but you do - and that is his point.
Scott makes many other accusations in his submission to UT. Re-read his post above. Regerneus data does not support ANY valid conclusion regarding sexual orientation and parenting ability. Regenerus himself states that he found insufficient numbers to make such a valid comparison comparison between his control (long term biological intact families) and thier lesbian or gay analogue.
Its as if Regenerus had this train of thought:\
"Hey, 2 +2 =4 so why don't I find something that represents 2 and then look for another thing that represents 2 and add them together. Wow - I got 4. Eureka!
Uneureka.
That is why UT should investigate but even if they don't Regenerus has made himself a pawn. He critices other studies relentlessly in his paper and in the media for not being population-based but then fails to include a population based sample of intact same sex parents/families with whom a valid comparison could be made that relates to sexuality.
Paul -
If what you say is true, then Rich had it wrong. My point wasn't to degrade the docs because they might be homosexuals; my point was that getting people to sign a petition is easy when they have an emotional stake in the outcome of the issue at hand. If the study was about the dangerousness of pit bulls, I would have said the signers were all pit bull owners.
But the real point is that Rich was so upset that he resorted to threats - typical run-to-mommy tactic of the homosexualist movement - to censor comments that he doesn't like. That's not the way to promote tolerance; that's tolerance by applying a boot to one's neck. And that kind of tolerance just promotes backlash and resentment, which is what the ss"m"ers are experiencing here.
Rich, and Paul, you guys or girls are unbelievable!
RIch said:
I must insist, again,that NOM filter OvercameSSA's comments such as the one above accusing 200 scientists of being homosexual because they support an investigation Regenerus' study. His attacks are slanderous and bordering on illegal and will be called ouT if NOM does not filter them.
Rich, these types of posting don't intimidate anyone here, these types of threats do not work wit us NOMers. You better get use to homosexuality being condemned for a long time, at least until people stop engaging in it...
Scott Rose thinks it decisive that Regnerus' study has "no valid comparison between his 'test' group and his 'control' group."
Heh.
And Scott Rose will now speak against the deeply flawed (if few in number) and much-over-sold politicized studies of lesbian samples, also.
In 3 .... 2 .... 1 ....
[crickets chirping.]