Spin vs. science

Pity the American Psychological Association, the largest and best known professional organization of psychologists in the world and publisher of many of the most rigorous scientific journals in psychology.

Last year, an article entitled A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples appeared in its Psychological Bulletin. A scientific study with a title like this one might seem harmless, or at least boring enough to ignore. However, the findings of the study dispute the public’s view that all sexual contact between adults and children is psychologically damaging to the child.

Instead, the authors found that girls are more likely to be negatively affected than boys, that a majority of boys described the experience as neutral or (gulp) positive and that the family’s impact is far more powerful than sexual abuse on the victim’s psychological condition as a young adult. Conservative voices, such as the Christian Coalition and talk-show host Dr. Laura Schlesinger, accused the APA of trying to legitimize child sexual abuse. The U.S. House of Representatives, always ready to commandeer a bandwagon rolling downhill, unanimously passed a resolution denouncing the study. The author of the resolution, Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Ariz., described the article as the emancipation proclamation of pedophiles.

Most scientists and scientific bodies try to avoid rancorous social debate, and when they accidentally fall into a hornet’s nest like this one, will argue that they are only presenting the scientific data, so don’t shoot the messenger. Or they trot out researchers who had a different analysis of the same data to challenge the conclusions of the first study on grounds of poor methodology, confounded statistical analysis, inadequate sampling, etc.

Instead, the APA acquiesced to the considerable political pressure and promised that it would more carefully consider future articles on sensitive subjects for their public policy implications and that a separate review process would be initiated to review those articles. A sound policy, if used not to censor but to anticipate how a study will be received and put it in a context that will be generally understood.

Out of the frying pan

The policy, unfortunately, has not quite become part of APA culture. Not satisfied with challenging the public morality about child sexual abuse, the association decided to take on the sensitive topic of the importance of fathering. The lead article in last month’s American Psychologist, “Deconstructing the Essential Father” argues that fathers aren’t particularly important to the psychological health of the child, and don’t add anything unique to parenting. The authors state, “Caregiving functions can be performed by parenting figures of either sex, whether or not they are biologically related to the child.” Pretty much anybody will do, they conclude.

But before this is called science, consider that the authors apparently are proud of the fact that their analysis of the data “supports our political agenda,” which is to gain public welfare money for “diverse family structures.” A spokesman for APA acknowledged the APA’s failure to pass this article through the separate review process they just promised to initiate, because the article was “already in the pipeline.” Regardless of your viewpoint on the value of fathers and “diverse family structures,” scientists who allow their values to shape their data are engaging in spin, not science.

By agreeing to filter and possibly censor studies that are relevant to public policy, and at the same time publish studies with overt political agendas, the APA has made two serious mistakes that threaten to tarnish all scientific organizations.

Political groups of all persuasions will seek to use science toward their own ends whenever possible. The public understands that statistics can be made to sing most any tune. But it must be able to trust the science that generates the data, without screening for the political bias of the scientists. And the scientists need to be able to protect and be protected by the scientific method.

Where is Gallileo when you need him?