Paul Cameron: bogus science exposed in MSM
Paul Cameron’s bogus vanity-published studies on homosexuality have been discredited, such as “Gay Foster Parents More Apt to Molest.” (He turns up in Blend posts quite often)
A Blender pointed me to this story in the Boston Globe about fraudulent “scientist” Paul Cameron and the pseudo-science movement out there attacking gays.
Most of the information is known if you’ve been tuned in to this guy, but this is probably the largest paper to cover him. It is great exposure — we learn that most of his “peer reviewed” work that the White House now denies referring to, is published in a journal that has no veto power to prevent publication of any author’s work. You pay, you publish.
President Bush had a ready answer when asked in January for his view of adoption by same-sex couples: “Studies have shown that the ideal is where a child is raised in a married family with a man and a woman,” the president said.
Bush’s assertion raised eyebrows among specialists. The American Academy of Pediatrics, composed of leaders in the field, had found no meaningful difference between children raised by same-sex and heterosexual couples, based on a 2002 report written largely by a Boston pediatrician, Dr. Ellen C. Perrin.
But Bush’s statement was celebrated at a tiny think tank called the Family Research Institute, where the founder, Dr. Paul Cameron, believes Bush was referring to studies he has published in academic journals that are critical of gays and lesbians as parents.
…The president’s statement was also welcomed at a small organization with an august-sounding name, the American College of Pediatricians. The college, which has a small membership, says on its website that it would be “dangerously irresponsible” to allow same-sex couples to adopt children. The college was formed just three years ago, after the 75-year-old American Academy of Pediatrics issued its paper.
…For example, Cameron’s Family Research Institute, with an annual budget of less than $200,000, tries to counter the views of the 150,000-member American Psychological Association, which has an annual budget of $98 million. The tiny American College of Pediatricians has a single employee, yet it has been quoted as a counterpoint to the 60,000-member American Academy of Pediatrics.
Senior Bush aides, asked for the basis of the comment about adoption, now say they are unaware of any studies comparing heterosexual and same-sex adoptions — by Cameron or by any pediatric association. The president, they say, was probably referring to studies that show children are better off living with both biological parents — though those studies have nothing to do with adoption by same-sex couples.
But Cameron said that he feels confident that Bush was referring to his work, and that he once briefed two White House aides on his research, which is widely distributed through the Christian Communication Network, a public relations firm run by an antiabortion activist, Gary L. McCullough, who also was the press agent for the parents of Terri Schiavo.
Indeed, a web search found that Cameron’s findings had been repeated on a variety of conservative websites and blogs. Cameron said he has made a deliberate strategy of getting his research published in peer-reviewed academic journals, which he considers more effective than merely writing opinion articles. Cameron said the credibility that goes with being published in the journals enables him to be cited in court decisions and to promote his views in public appearances. Peer review “is the standard in the academic world,” Cameron said. “It means that other people have looked at what you’ve done and said, ‘It’s OK.’ “
But Cameron’s adoption study, and at least 10 more of his works, appeared in Psychological Reports, a small journal based in Montana, which says its studies are peer-reviewed, although editor Doug Ammons said: “No reviewer has a veto right.” The journal, which typically charges $27.50 per page to print an article, is portrayed by Ammons as a ”scientific manifestation of free speech.”
By contrast, the largest professional journals, which are often cited as sources of medical information — such as Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine — say they will reject an article if any peer reviewer raises serious objections about its methodology. Those journals do not charge for publication.
Just a few past Blend posts on Cameron…
* The right-wing press is going to be all over this junk science by Paul Cameron