Two years ago former Surgeon General David Satcher invited leaders from both sides of the debate over sexual health in meet together to see if some common ground could be found. “The Interim Report of the National Consensus Process on Sexual Health and Responsible Sexual Behavior” (NCP) is the product of their discussions.
It was agreed from the beginning that “consensus” would require real consensus; everyone would have to agree. While some groups dropped out, those who remained were able to reach consensus on a few key points. Most significant is their agreement on “best practices for research on sexual health and behavior.” The NCP agreed on criteria for assessing the quality of individual studies. These include:
Reliability — If the same group were tested again would the results be the same?
Internal Validity — Is methodology used going to provide accurate findings?
External Validity — Can the results be generalized to other populations?
Replicability — Would another group of researchers get the same results?
Statistical Significance — Could the result have occurred by chance?
The NCP also agreed that public policy decisions should be made on the basis of multiple studies:
Ideally, evidence-based policy-making relies not on a single piece of sound research (one that has high levels of reliability, validity, replicability and statistical significance, and has undergone peer review), but on a collection of well-designed and well-executed studies with similar findings.
Every pro-life, pro-family, pro-marriage activist needs to obtain a copy of this section (Appendix 1) of the NCP report, because Appendix 1 provides an agreed upon standard by which all research can be judged — a standard to which Planned Parenthood, SIECUS, the Guttmacher Institute and the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice have agreed.
Obviously, social conservatives should be sure that any research they quote meets these standards, but in most cases this will not be a problem. Knowing the kind of scrutiny anything a social conservative says receives, those defending life, family and marriage have learned to be very careful.
Their opponents — knowing they will get a pass from media — have not been so scrupulous. Many of the studies they routinely quote do not meet these criteria. They don't even come close.
For example, in their book “No Basis: What the studies don't tell us about same-sex parenting” Robert Lerner and Althea Nagai analyzed 49 studies on same-sex parenting — studies used in friend of the court briefs, court decisions, and to support legislative action. Using criteria very similar to that proposed by NCP, they found every one of the studies failed to meet the basic criteria for reliability. Gay activists claim that the weight of all these studies prove there were no differences between children raised by same-sex couples and children raised by their married biological parents. Lerner and Nagai argue convincingly that no matter how many invalid studies you pile up, you can't claim that you have proven anything. 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 doesn't equal a million, it equals zero. Indeed many of the studies did not even compare children raised by same-sex couples with those raised by their married, biological parents. Some found real differences and failed to mention them in the conclusion.
A team from the Medical Institute for Sexual Health analyzed a widely quoted article by John Santelli and associates, entitled “Abstinence and abstinence-only education: A review of U.S. Policies and Programs.” The article claimed that abstinence education threatened fundamental human rights. The team from MISH found that the Santelli article did not meet the minimum standards for credibility. They questioned how it could have been published in a peer reviewed journal. Their complete analysis — “The Attack on Abstinence: Fact or Fallacy” — is available on the MISH website.
Refuting each false claim requires detailed analysis. Few people are in a position to read the original material; fewer still have the skills needed to evaluate the research protocols.
The refusal to publish solid research has even more devastating effects. Studies which reach politically incorrect conclusions are often rejected by peer reviewed journals. This allows the promoters of the politically correct to claim that there are no published studies contradicting their claims, not of course mentioning that they are the ones preventing the publication of such studies.
One of the best kinds of research is a longitudinal birth cohort study in which a group of people are picked at birth and followed up on at regular intervals. Such a study has been going on for 25 years in New Zealand. Recently the head researcher David Fergusson announced that by age 25 14.6% of the women in the study had had an abortion and 42% of those had experienced a major depression. This was double the rate of those who had never been pregnant. Those having an abortion had elevated rates of subsequent mental health problems including depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviors, and substance abuse. Dr. Fergusson reacted sharply when his paper reporting the findings was declined by several journals: “It verges on the scandalous that a surgical procedure that is performed on over one in 10 women has been so poorly researched and evaluated.”
Peer reviewed journals should be supplying crucial evidence to guide public policy debate. When they are hijacked by ideologues, accept invalid research, or reject solid studies because their conclusions aren't politically correct, the public policy debated is impoverished. We can't expect the mainstream media to investigate and the politicized professional associations appear unable to police themselves. What we can do is impress upon conservative Congressmen that they are often blindsided by invalid research and need to launch a Congressional investigation into the abuses of process.
Dale O'Leary is a writer, pro-family activist and educator living in Rhode Island. Her e-mail address is daleoleary@thefactis.org.
