|
Bad Research Leads to Bad Laws
A review of medical studies published from 1990 to
2003 in three prestigious journals -- the New
England Journal of Medicine, JAMA and
Lancet -- has called the validity of
approximately one-third of them into severe
question. www.livescience.com/othernews/ap_050714_medical_studies.html
If a relatively en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_sciences
'hard' science (like medicine) has such difficulty
with accuracy, then the results offered by the
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_sciences
so-called 'soft' sciences (like sociology) should
be approached with a high degree of skepticism.
This is especially necessary since public policy
and laws are often formed by such studies.
Consider the 'feminist' issues of rape or
domestic violence (DV). Studies that address these
areas are often released in combination with policy
recommendations. Indeed, they sometimes appear to
be little more than a springboard from which
advocates can launch a campaign for more law.
In turn, the laws that result often provide for
more research. The Violence Against Women Act or
VAWA -- now up for re-authorization before Congress
-- is an example. VAWA includes provisions for more
tax-funded research, for precisely the sort of
research that created it in the first place.
And, so, a re-enforcing cycle is established:
studies lead to laws that lead to similar
tax-funded studies, which call for more law.
The cycle should be broken.
This does not mean that law should be separated
from the reality checks provided by solid data.
Quite the contrary. It means that the current
self-sustaining cycle tends to discourage contrary
evidence and critical thinking about the data on
which the laws rest.
This is not a mere academic matter. Inaccurate
studies become entrenched in laws that govern our
daily lives. Using VAWA as an example again, the
Act incorrectly assumes that women and not men are
the victims of DV, and it has been influential in
denying men access to shelters. This denial often
extends to the older male children of women who
seek assistance.
In the best of circumstances, research is
unreliable outside strictly defined limitations;
even within those limits, research generally
provides only an indication rather than a
proof.
The reliability of studies declines sharply when
you move from the hard sciences to the soft
ones.
'Hard science' refers to certain natural
sciences, like physics and chemistry. These
disciplines pursue accuracy and objectivity through
observing and measuring objects or phenomena in
order to produce results that can be independently
replicated. In other words, hard science uses
www.answers.com/topic/scientific-method
the scientific method.
'Soft science' refers to the social sciences,
which include psychology, sociology, political
science and other explorations of the human
condition. Because human nature is not as easily
observed or measured as objects, complex social
interactions rarely offer replicable results. There
are just too many unpredictable and unknown
factors, too few research controls. It must rely
more heavily upon interpretation of data. In short,
the soft sciences produce less reliable
results.
Interpretation -- that is, the filtering of data
through a researcher's assumptions, goals and
beliefs -- is not unique to the soft sciences. It
merely runs rampant there due to lack of
controls.
Nevertheless, all research is vulnerable to
being skewed and deliberately so.
On July 11th, the Associated Press abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=928477
reported, "Allegations of misconduct by U.S.
researchers reached record highs last year as the
Department of Health and Human Services received
274 complaints -- 50 percent higher than 2003 and
the most since 1989 when the federal government
established a program to deal with scientific
misconduct."
What motivates a researcher to bias a study,
survey, or report? There are many answers, from
laziness to concealing incompetence and seeking
prestige. In the hard sciences, the most common
answer is probably www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/12132227.htm
"funding".
The scientific community is still reeling from
recent revelations about Eric T. Poehlman, a
leading researcher on aging and obesity. Poehlman
simply www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/03/18/researcher_admits_fraud_in_grant_data/
faked the data on 17 applications for federal
grants that totaled near $3 million. His
'findings', published in prestigious medical
journals, helped to define how medicine approaches
the effects of menopause on women's health.
The soft sciences share all these research
vulnerabilities. But, because they are less
constrained by research controls, the most common
answer there to what motives bias may well be
"political belief."
The foregoing statement will surprise few
people. For example, 'feminist research' is
notorious for arriving at feminist conclusions
through research that includes clear political
assumptions.
It may surprise people, however, to hear that I
don't think political agendas are inevitable within
the soft sciences. Even on controversial subjects
like rape, it is possible to find interesting
studies in which researchers sincerely pursue solid
data.
But you have to go back a few decades. In his
book from the '70s, "Men who Rape: The Psychology
of the Offender", Nicholas Groth offered a theory
that sounds almost jarring to today's ears. He
wrote, "One of the most basic observations one can
make regarding men who rape is that not all such
offenders are alike." That is, a drunken boyfriend
who rapes because he does not hear the "no" being
uttered should not be placed in the same research
category as a back alley rapist who leaves his
victim physically crippled for life.
A rape researcher could not make that statement
today on a college campus. He would be fired,
bludgeoned into silence, or his funding would be
yanked. There is now only one acceptable view of
rape; it is an act of power. There is only one
research category of rapist: the oppressor.
I believe the cycle of studies leading to laws
leading to studies should be broken not because I
am against solid research but because I am for it.
Bring skepticism and common sense to all data you
hear; withhold your tax dollars.
©2008, Wendy
McElroy
* * *
Wendy
McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com
and a research fellow for The Independent Institute
in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and editor of
many books and articles, including her latest book,
Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the
21st Century. She lives with her husband in
Canada. E-Mail.
Also, see her daily blog at www.zetetics.com/mac
Contact
Us |
Disclaimer
| Privacy
Statement
Menstuff®
Directory
Menstuff® is a registered trademark of Gordon
Clay
©1996-2023, Gordon Clay
|
