Early in the 17th century, Galileo famously proclaimed that the Earth revolved around the sun. He was charged with heresy, forced to recant and sentenced to house arrest until he died. This might be the most clichéd example of society shunning science, but it’s hardly the only example. In the 19th century, Hungarian physician Ignaz Semmelweis was ridiculed and ostracized because he urged fellow doctors to disinfect their hands to prevent the spread of disease.
If you believe the days of maligning scientists for their work are over, I beg to differ. The forces that caused our ancestors to punish Galileo and Semmelweis are still strong.
In 1998, a psychologist named Bruce Rind published research in a respected journal indicating that sexually abused children rarely suffer permanent psychological harm. They are likely to react with fear and anger, Rind and his colleagues found, and some (girls more than boys) experience long-term negative consequences. But poor family environments are 10 times as likely to cause lasting problems. Appropriately, the authors were careful to say their findings only dealt with the harmfulness, not the morality, of child sexual abuse and statutory rape.
The backlash was staggering, if predictable. Critics accused Rind of supporting pedophilia and sexual assault. In mid-1999, Texas Rep. Tom DeLay sponsored a resolution condemning the study, and it passed overwhelmingly. No one voted against it, but the Christian Coalition targeted the few representatives who abstained and accused them of supporting sexual abuse. I find that logic nonsensical. Shouldn’t we be relieved that children are generally resilient? Even within the academic community, many experts have criticized the study while misrepresenting its findings and methodology, according to Carole Wade and Carol Tavris, two prominent psychologists.
This issue is topical because we have our own shunned scientist at Northwestern in psychology professor J. Michael Bailey. The 2003 publication of Bailey’s book, “The Man Who Would Be Queen,” sparked a firestorm that led critics to call him a homophobe and a junk scientist. The book argued that bisexuality might not exist in men and that some male-to-female transsexuals get aroused imagining themselves as women. According to The New York Times, Web sites likened Bailey’s work to Nazi propaganda, and one site posted pictures of his children with sexually explicit captions. But several investigations, including a recent one by ethicist Alice Dreger, have cleared him of wrongdoing. On campus, I find many people criticize Bailey without understanding his work. When I attended Safe Space training to become a member of NU’s LGBT support network, presenters attacked him and said his research should be ignored.
Let me be clear that I have no problem with thoughtful criticism and peer review. Indeed, there are many legitimate critiques of these scientists’ work. What concerns me is the hatred, character assassination and baseless accusations of misconduct some scientists face because their findings are unpopular or politically incorrect.
Medill senior David Spett can be reached [email protected].
