The big feedback post

Here’s the place to add any suggestions that are not specific to an already-listed Disgrace to Science (DtS).

Names to add to the list, formatting/appearance suggestions, or whatever- it’s all good.

Disgrace to Science #3: Judith Reisman

Dr. Judith Reisman likes to use her communications degree as evidence of her qualifications in other fields, such as psychology and biochemistry.

• Obsessed with Kinsey.
• Relatedly, she likes to claim that Kinsey was a paedophile and/or child molester. The Kinsey Institute has responded to her claims.
• In the 1980′s, she was given a grant to study  imagry in Penthouse, Playboy, and Hustler. The American University, where the study was based, refused to publish it. Avedon Carol provides more details in her book, “Nudes, Prudes, and Attitudes,” but here’s the jist of it:

It was a scientific disaster, riddled with researcher bias and baseless assumptions. The American University (AU), where Reisman’s study had been academically based, actually refused to publish it when she released it, after their independent academic auditor reported on it. Dr Robert Figlio of the University of Pennsylvania told AU that, ‘The term child used in the aggregate sense in this report is so inclusive and general as to be meaningless.’ Figlio told the press, ‘I wondered what kind of mind would consider the love scene from Romeo and Juliet to be child porn’.

She blames the fact that it wasn’t published on the Kinsey Institute.

• Figlio isn’t the only one who felt her research wasn’t worht the paper it was printed on. Dr. Loretta Haroian, formerly of the Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality, Dept. of Child & Adolescent Sexuality, is quoted by Carol as saying:

This is not science, it’s vigilantism: paranoid, pseudoscientific hyperbole with a thinly veiled hidden agenda. This kind of thing doesn’t help children at all. … [Reisman's] study demonstrates gross negligence and, while she seems to have spent a lot of time collecting her data, her conclusions, based on the data, are completely unwarranted. The experts Reisman cites are, in fact, not experts at all but simply people who have chosen to adopt some misinformed, Disneyland conception of childhood that she has. These people are little more than censors hiding behind Christ and children.

• Blames an addiction to pornography on an addiction to “erototoxins.” She’s not exactly clear on what constitutes an erototoxin, mostly because there’s no other research out there supporting her theory.
• In her book Crafting “Gay” Children, she claims that the gays are recruiting, and links homosexuality to paedophilia, despite the lack of supporting evidence from reputable sources:

“And, as there is, on the evidence, a definite connection between homosexuality and the myriad pathologies, including pedophilia, schools and youth organizations should be legally liable for allowing bi/homosexuals any authority or influence over children. This is a sure way to severely limit the traffic in child pornography and prostitution.”

Disgrace to Science #2: James Dobson

The founder of Focus on the Family, Dobson is another name pulled out by the religious right to condemn gays.

• Has repeatedly been called out for misrepresenting other people’s work, often claiming that the research “proves” that homosexuality is bad, regardless of the actual conclusions reached by the original author.
• Advocates “ex-gay” therapy, which has been shown to be ineffective at the best of times, and which the American Psychiatric Association (among others) has basically said is a waste of time.
• Generally hold religious doctrine as more truthful than any science that does not support said doctrine.

Disgrace to Science #1: Paul Cameron

Paul Cameron, founder of the Family Research Institute, has long been a source of anti-gay “science” used to condemn gay people. Among the scientific community, Cameron is well-known for his poor methodology.

Cameron:

• Was kicked out of the APA for not co-operating with the Committee on Scientific and Professional Ethics and Conduct.
• Has been known to dismiss critics by claiming they must be gay.
• Has been disassociated from and/or repudiated by the Nebraska Psychological Association, the American Sociological Association, and the Canadian Psychological Association.