Robert Verbruggen, deputy managing editor of National Review:
"...The complaint [against Prof. Regnerus], summarized in a breathless open letter to the university’s president, was filed by Scott Rose, a New York City–based novelist and freelance writer. Rose does not allege serious ethical misconduct, such as plagiarism or falsifying data. Rather, the letter’s only concrete allegation that Regnerus violated an official policy is a contention that Regnerus used “misinformation in an attempt to hurt others.”
... Rose makes much of the fact that the research was funded by conservative groups. Surely this is one thing to bear in mind when evaluating the study. But it is not at all uncommon or unethical for political organizations to fund research. And if Rose thinks gay parenting should not be studied with financial support from interested parties, perhaps he would like to file complaints against researchers who’ve accepted money from the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, the Lesbian Health Fund, the Gill Foundation, and the Horizons Foundation as well.
... Every study deserves rigorous and passionate criticism. Regnerus’s work is no exception. But the ethics complaint against him is frivolous, and the university should dismiss it.
7 Comments
Verbruggen does a great job taking apart that flimsy ethics complaint.
Wonderfull Interview in NRO and a important new book that I just bought online..
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/309934/pill-buzz-kill-interview?pg=1
It seems Marys critiques are content to prove her points for her…and almost immediatley as well..
In the interview Mary is talking about those secular liberal academics who dare defend the traditional family or simply point to the objective evidence that has resulted from the sexual revolution.
She writes
Mary Eberstadt…
“…. The few hardy souls who do venture into Sorokin’s territory constantly risk becoming pariahs. Witness the unhinged ferocity of some of the attacks on recent work by social scientist Mark Regnerus.”
In response a poster proves her point for her by saying…
[Poster in response]
“The near universal condemnation of Mark Regnerus’ “study” of gay parenting deserves the scorn that it’s being met with. It is possibly the most shoddily conceived and executed sociology study of the last 25 years.”
To further prove her point about the stridency of the left on these issues….another poster chimes in with this…
[Poster in response #2]
“Eberstadt and K-lo distort the facts, as always, in their neurotic war against sex, and against women.”
Its rather nicew when one’s opposition is content to offer up vindication of ones veiws. The Regnerus study is the largest & only radom sample study to date and suffers no flaws that social scientific studies in general are not always subject to.
To date it has suffered under a scorn of criticism seeking to repudiate its findings not through refutation & science… but through smearing and blacklisting.
Mary apparently has plently of willing subjects ready to reinforce her theisis.
I would like to know how much Bradley Foundation/Witherspoon Institute/Robert George paid to Prof. Regnerus for the "study" of gay parenting. Does anyone know?
To all traditional marriage supporters. Read the 44 comments in the NR article, they are really good.
Bern, I recall $800,000, but it would be good to cross-check that.
That's how much the study cost, not how much Regnerus was paid, by the way.
Another good reason to get rid of campus speech codes if they can be used like this to stifle genuine research.
Bern, do you know how many dollars have been spent on the studies that the pro-SSM campaign (incuding the APA) have relied upon? And how many dollars have been spent pushing the pro-SSM spin?
I think you will find that more has been spent on the spin than on the molehill of studies.
Oh, and how many adult children were there in those studies, in all, raised by the stated criteria of the critics of the Regnerus study? And how many were randomly selected?
And how many children in one-sex-short scenarios have been studied during the past 3 decades?
Some perspective, please.