This past June, the Elsevier journal Social Science Research published a study conducted by Mark Regnerus that looked into the outcomes of same-sex couples raising children. The study itself was highly suspect and proved to be largely fraudulent as Regnerus’ look into the information was not only highly cherry picked, but largely looked at information that he was not studying.
Regnerus’ study claimed to find that same-sex couples were worse at raising children than opposite-sex couples. What Regnerus studied, however, were mixed-orientation marriages where adultery was present. Such fraudulent research breaks the ethical rules of academia badly. Making matters worse, one of the men who did the peer review on the study also sits on the board of Elsevier, and was a paid consultant on the project which was funded by the National Organization for Marriage affiliate the Witherspoon Institute.
The motives for what they did is simple to see. Simply put, these people wanted to come up with something that looked like legitimate research to counter the legitimate research which has shown that the children of same-sex couples grow up as healthy and normal as everyone else.
Regnerus has largely proven that his research is fraudulent and even admitted not knowing the actual sexual orientations of the parents of those whom he studied; however, he has not rescinded his study nor renounced it.
Elsiver has now published a non-peer reviewed rebuttal by walter Schumm defending the Regnerus study. Schumm is a Kansas State University sociologist who writes this piece without noticing the conflict of interest here in his defense. Schumm was a paid consultant on the Regnerus study. This fact renders his defense of Regnerus suspect at best. Schumm has his own coals in the fire, so to speak, so defending Regnerus is not really a good idea. Basically, he has to cover his own backside or his academic credentials will come into question.
Scott Rose of the New Civil Rights Movement noted that:
Schumm purports to show that all aspects of Regnerus’s heavily-criticized study methodology have been used in other studies, a documented falsehood.
Schumm does not address the most devastating of the criticisms made of Regnerus. Furthermore, Schumm states as fact things that he does not actually know to be fact.
Schumm has a history of distorting the scientific record in order to demonize homosexuals, all the more reason that Elsevier’s James Wright should not have published a non-peer-reviewed contribution from him.
Social Science Research previously had a reputation as a peer-reviewed journal, which Wright, Schumm, Regnerus and his funders are illicitly exploiting to promote non-peer-reviewed work as being scientifically legitimate.
Typically, when anti-gay-hate groups publish their promotions of these Regnerus-study-related materials, they state that the materials were published in “a peer reviewed journal.” In his November issue, Wright published Regnerus’s own non-peer-reviewed article of “Additional Analyses.” Wright presents these articles in publication, as though they had been peer reviewed. It can no longer truthfully be said that “Social Science Research” is a peer reviewed journal.
The assault on academia has been ongoing now for some time. Many of these groups are upset that their precious ideology is under threat, and that they cannot prove that their ideologies are right through above board scholarship. This is why it is absolutely necessary for them to engage in this concerted effort to destroy academia and perpetuate fraudulent research. While the study did not serve its masters well in the last election, do not be surprised if they push this for all that they can.