Note to Cambridge University Press: Avoiding rational debate about bogus research published in an otherwise reputable academic journal doesn’t mean the truth-seekers will give up. It just means they will find other ways to get heard.

Regular readers of my blog are familiar with the gross misrepresentation of my book Families Like Mine which was used as the bulk of a research “sample” in a “study” published in the Journal of Biosocial Science by Paul Cameron. (Those who are new to this saga can peruse the links at the bottom of this post to bring you up to speed.)

Despite my numerous attempts to contact the editor of the journal and the advisory board members of the journal as well as leaving messages with Cambridge University Press, I have never received any sort of reply, ever.

But the publication of this nightmare junk science doesn’t just hurt my work and the sons and daughters it represents…it also hurts anyone who has published legitimate research in the Journal of Biosocial Science — because if anyone can sink the reputation of a peer-reviewed journal, it’s Paul Cameron.

Enter Professors Raymond Hames and Edward H. Hagen. They maintain that their reputations and the research they published in JBS in 2001 is in jeopardy by being associated with a journal that legitimizes the work of Cameron. They wrote the journal about their concerns, but like me, they received no response.

Not satisfied with the silence, they approached Anthropology News, which has now published a letter from them as well as is a short piece entitled “Our obligation to respond to pseudo-science” by Virginia Vitzthum, head of the biological anthropology section of the American Anthropological Association (AAA). An editorial note at the end of the Hames/Hagen piece notes that JBS did not respond to their initial letter nor did JBS respond to AN’s invitation for a response.

And excerpt from what Anthropology News published (Volume 48, No. 5, May 2007, pp. 4-5.):

This article is crippled by two fatal flaws. First, it incorrectly claims “the effects of parental homosexuality on adult children . ..are largely unexplored.” This claim is belied by research summarized in the meta-analysis of Stacey and Biblarz in their 2001 American Sociological Review article, “(How) Does the sexual orientation of parents matter?,” cited by Cameron. In their table 1, Stacey and Biblarz list no less than five relevant findings from two studies, all undiscussed by Cameron (Cameron does briefly discuss one study, but ignores the key finding).

Second, Cameron’s “sample” consists of case studies drawn from three books discovered via a search on Amazon.com. These books give readers a humanistic account of various facets of being reared by lesbigay parents, and make no pretense of presenting a random or representative sample. Imagine searching Amazon for books on testimonials of herbal cures for cancer and providing a statistical analysis of the results from which you then draw conclusions about the efficacy of various herbs.

Particularly egregious is Cameron’s use of Abigail Garner’s book, Families Like Mine (2004), which comprises more than half of his sample (50/77). Garner deliberately selected approximately 25 homosexuals reared by homosexual or transgender individuals and 25 heterosexuals reared by homosexuals, as she has stated in an open letter to JBS. Given the central research question under consideration is the effect of parents’ sexual orientation on children’s sexual orientation, the use of this non-representative sample is illegitimate because it strongly biases the number of homosexuals. Cameron’s article is pseudo-science that evaded detection by the review and editorial procedures at JBS.

Unfortunately this is not available online.

I should mention here, that JBS did publish a debate response to Cameron’s work, but that response totally missed the point, only dredging up tired stats about how the statistics were improbable — if the writer had actually gotten a hold of my book he would laugh at his own letter, since he would see that the “statistics” Cameron used are not really statistics at all. They are a deliberate oversampling, because my intent was to tell stories, not roll out statistics. JBS gave Cameron a chance to reply, which he did, once again claiming that refusals to accept the truth about the statistics is due to a “pro-homosexual” bias.

In the Anthropology News piece, Hagen and Hames write about the published debate piece and Cameron’s response in JBS:

In light of increasingly sophisticated attempts to manipulate the scientific record to political ends, journal editors must ensure manuscripts are sent to reviewers who know the relevant research literature and who have the requisite methodological skills. In a “Debate” section, JBS did publish a reply to Cameron by Todd Morrison (who does not discuss the problems we identified here). Unfortunately, this has further legitimized Cameron’s junk science by suggesting that Cameron is engaged in a real scientific debate. JBS, unlike Science in the Hwang Woo-suk fiasco, has failed to acknowledge or address the real issue: the severe failure of its review process.

My deepest gratitude to Hagen and Hames for remaining vigilant, and to Jim Burroway of Box Turtle Bulletin for his ongoing meticulous documentation.

===

Related posts:

August 8, 2006
Journal of Biosocial Science Ignores Contributors

May 24, 2006
Open letter to Journal of Biosocial Science

May 23, 2006
COLAGE’s Action Alert

May 16, 2006
“Baffling” is the perfect word.

May 9, 2006
Decoding Cameron’s Radio Soundbites

April 20, 2006
Context and Qualifiers: More on Cameron’s research and my book

April 17, 2006
Children of Homosexuals More Apt To Disdain Paul Cameron

Trackback URI | Comments RSS