While the University of Texas may have done a cursory investigation into malfeasance with regards to Mark Regnerus’ Witherspoon Inistitute backed study into same-sex couple’s parenting, that is not stopping people from digging further into the subject and much of what they are finding is not only startling, but completely destroys the last shreds of academic credibility that Regnerus has.
The Witherspoon Institute is affiliated with the National Organization for Marriage and gave Regnerus some $785,000 to conduct his ‘study.’ Part of the problem with the ‘study’ is that it contained little actual research, but rather a combination of correlation of other data and anecdotal evidence. The study’s data actually looked into the effects of “mixed-orientation” marriages. In this case, the effects of having one parent be straight and one parent being gay.
To a certain degree, if the study had been just that, and done nothing else, it would have been successful in showing that same-sex marriage is good for children and that forcing same-sex oriented individuals into marriages with opposite-sex oriented individuals was very harmful to children. (This does not mean that bi/straight marriages are problematic). However, Regnerus saw the evidence and twisted it in order to conclude that same-sex parents are bad for children.
It goes beyond that. While the UofT may feel that Regnerus’ ‘study’ was properly vetted, it turns out that the ethics behind it being vetted are rather murky. Brad Wilcox, an official with the Witherspoon Institute, is on the board of the Social Science Research journal. They are the ones that published Regnerus’ study. This is considered a grave conflict of interest.
A complaint has been filed with the American Sociological Association regarding this which reads, in part:
A Golinski-case amicus brief analyzing the Regnerus study as scientifically invalid, for example, was jointly filed by 1) the American Psychological Association; 2) the California Psychological Association; 3) the American Psychiatric Association; 4) the National Association of Social Workers; and 5) its California Chapter; 6) the American Medical Association; 7) the American Academy of Pediatrics; and 8) the American Psychoanalytic Association.
Separately, over 200 Ph.D.s and M.D.s sent a letter to the journal Social Science Research, which published the fraudulent Regnerus study, complaining of its lack of intellectual integrity and its suspiciously rushed publication schedule. An audit revealed that the Regnerus submission had only gotten published through corrupt peer review.
In an echo of when the American Sociological Association banned Paul Cameron and declared that he is not a sociologist, due to his intentional distortions of the scientific record, the ASA is poised to take action against the Regnerus study.
Authorities of the anti-gay-rights Witherspoon, NOM and FRC are notorious for wielding Cameron’s distortions of the scientific record as a weapon against their gay victims.
Regnerus, essentially, cooked his data. He hand picked his subjects and data points so as to exclude anyone who would contradict his findings. In fact, this kind of malfeasance is considered highly unethical. Not only was the study produced in a fraudulent manner, but it was designed specifically to reach the conclusion it did. This is not how science is suppose to work.
For more on this, please read the work of Scott Rose over at The New Civil Rights Movement: