MailToBlog - An e-mail a day keeps the fascists at bay.

Proud Members of the Reality-Based Community

Sunday, June 19, 2005

Why Does Ammons Scientific's Psychological Reports Publish Literature From A Known Hate Group?

Update, June 20, 2005

After writing the original post I discovered that the Southern Voice, Houston Voice, and Washington Blade reported that the CDC has commented on Paul Cameron's research.

"But Cameron’s methodology is simply bad science, said Ronald Valdiserri, deputy director of the CDC’s National Center for HIV, STD and TB Prevention. [The CDC] does not collect statistics on the lifespan of gay men,” Valdiserri said. “While gay men continue to be severely impacted by HIV and AIDS, AIDS-related death data cannot be used to indicate that homosexual men live shorter lives than heterosexual men overall.”

http://www.washblade.com/2005/6-17/view/actionalert/weird.cfm



It has come to my attention that an article by Paul Cameron appears in Psychological Reports (2005;96:693-697).

Paul Cameron's organization, the Family Research Institute, has been designated as a hate goup by the Southern Poverty law center. Cameron has been producing virulent anti-gay hate literature for decades.

Cameron was dropped from membership in the American Psychological Association in 1984 for ethical violations concerning his biased research. That same year, the Psychological Association in his home state of Nebraska adopted a formal resolution disassociating itself from Cameron's work. Read the October 3, 1994 New Republic Article About Paul Cameron.

In 1985, a federal judge concluded that Cameron had engaged in "fraud" and "misrepresentation" when he testified in a gay-related case in Texas. (Baker v. Wade, 106 Federal Rules Decisions 526 [N.D. Texas, 1985]) Judge Buchmeyer of the U.S. District Court of Dallas referred to "Cameron's sworn statement that 'homosexuals abuse children at a proportionately greater incident than do heterosexuals,'" and concluded that "Dr. Paul Cameron...has himself made misrepresentations to this Court" and that "There has been no fraud or misrepresentations except by Dr. Cameron"

On page 536 of his opinion, Judge Buchmeyer noted the following examples of misrepresentations by Cameron to the Court:



"(i) his sworn statement that "homosexuals are approximately 43
times more apt to commit crimes than is the general population" is a total
distortion of the Kinsey data upon which he relies which, as is obvious to
anyone who reads the report, concerns data from a non-representative sample of
delinquent homosexuals (and Dr. Cameron compares this group to college and
non-college heterosexuals);
(ii) his sworn statement that "homosexuals abuse
children at a proportionately greater incident than do heterosexuals" is based
upon the same distorted data and, the Court notes, is directly contrary to
other evidence presented at trial besides the testimony of Dr. Simon and Dr.
Marmour. (553 F. Supp. 1121 at 1130 n.18.)"

Speaking at the 1985 Conservative Political Action Conference Cameron said, "'Unless we get medically lucky, in three or four years, one of the options discussed will be the extermination of homosexuals."

According to an interview with former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, Cameron was recommending the extermination option as early as 1983." - Mark E. Pietrzyk, News-Telegraph, March 10, 1995.

Cameron told Rolling Stone magazine in a March 1999 interview that he feared gay sex would supplant heterosexual sex unless a vigilant society repressed it. "Marital sex tends toward the boring," he said. "Generally, it doesn't deliver the kind of sheer sexual pleasure that homosexual sex does." If all one seeks is an orgasm, he said, "the evidence is that men do a better job on men, and women on women. Homosexuality," he said, "seems too powerful to resist."

In 1987 the work of Paul Cameron was condemned by the UK Press Complaints Commission when it was presented as "fact" a newspaper article.

My question to you is, why would a publication purporting to be a scientific journal would publish literature from a known hate group.

Write to the associate editors of Psychological Reports. Ask them why they are willing to associate with a publication that publishes literature from a known hate group. (Ammons Scientific has a long list of associate editors. It is woefully out of date. This mail will not go to everyone on the list. For example, one of the listed associate editors, Frederick H. Kanfer, died during 2002.)


Copy your e-mail and paste it into Ammons Scientific's web form. Ask the same question of R. B. Ammons, C. H. Ammons, Bruce Ammons, Douglas Ammons, and S. A. Isbell.

4 Comments:

  • At 12:02 PM, Blogger Mike in Texas said…

    In response to my letter, I received the following from a member of the Psychological Reports editorial board.
    _______________________________

    Dear Sir,

    I would venture to argue that perhaps even material from hate groups should be subjected to peer review as a better alternative than letting it run rampant in the
    private sector. PR admits that it has had up to 20 reviewers critique Cameron's work.

    A better question would be to ask things like:

    Why did it take Schumm (and no one else after 20+ years) to report on flaws in research by Golombok, Kirkpatrick and others? It's not even his (my) primary area of interest. If not for PR, those flaws might never have been reported in the scientific
    literature anywhere. The entire scientific community had failed to properly critique research because, perhaps, they were thinking that "gay" research ought not be questioned at all.

    Sorry, but I feel an obligation to be an equal opportunity "critic." I go after the U.S. government, gay research, military research, Islamic research, or any kind of
    research. My ability to do so is a key foundation of academic freedom. And PR is one of the few scholarly journals that has not made certain topics off limits for
    constructive criticism, including the often offensive and shoddy work of Cameron. And Cameron, for any of his bad points, does have numerous good points. He
    recently improved substantially upon my critique of Kirkpatrick.

    So, that's my take on this.

    XXXXX XXXXX, Ph.D.
    Professor of Family Studies
    ______________________________

    My response to that:

    One must then question the quality of the 'peer review'. The CDC has this to say about the hate group's literature published in Psychological Reports.

    "But Cameron’s methodology is simply bad science, said Ronald Valdiserri, deputy director of the CDC’s National Center for HIV, STD and TB Prevention. [The CDC] does not collect statistics on the lifespan of gay men,” Valdiserri said. “While gay men continue to be severely impacted by HIV and AIDS, AIDS-related death data cannot be used to indicate that homosexual men live shorter lives than heterosexual men overall.” http://www.washblade.com/2005/6-17/view/actionalert/weird.cfm

    How could a proper peer review panel overlook something as fundamental as this?

    __________________________

    Then this most recent response.

    Mike,

    By the way, thanks for the websites, they had more material on Cameron than what I knew. I thought he was working out of Colorado Springs but one of the web sites says Washington, D.C., so that was news to me.

    His 2005 paper may be the one that I began to rip apart but got sidetracked with heavy teaching requirements this late spring. I still intend to critique it later this summer.
    _________________________________


    Hopefully he'll follow through and do what he should have done in the first place. (I'm an escapee from academia and still remember how two tweak the 'ego buttons'. [s],.

     
  • At 3:44 AM, Anonymous Sven said…

    I live in Sweden, Europe and just wanted to let you know that Dr Camerons crapy reserach is frequently used by local Gay hate groups on the far right reliogious side here. I have sent them your information and everything else I find to show them they must stop in their dishonest way to spread false information but they completely disregard my comments. For them truth and honesty seems non excisting aparently. They drive their agenda to any extent.

     
  • At 5:01 AM, Blogger nope said…

    Hi,

    I'm sorry for being intrusive in to your blog. But I am Melissa and I am a mother of two that is just trying to get out of an incredible financial debt. See my hubby is away in Iraq trying to protect this great country that we live in, and I am at home with our two kids telling bill collectors please be patiant. When my husband returns from war we will beable to catch up on our payments. We have already had are 2001 Ford repossessed from the bank, and are now down to a 83 buick that is rusted from front to back and the heater don't work, and tire tax is due in November.

    I'm not asking for your pitty because we got our ownselfs into this mess but we would love you and thank you in our prayers if you would just keep this link on your blog for others to view.

    God Bless You.

    Melissa K. W.
    To see my family view this page. My Family

    Full Software Download - Get full access to thousands of applications!

    Restore, Fix & Clean Up Your Registry Files and Errors in Windows. Does your PC crash, is your system running slow or are you receiving regular error messages? This program will scan your system registry and hard drive for invalid file and system references for free. These invalid references cause system instability, PC errors, constant crashes, and general system slowdowns.

    XoftSpy - The Latest in Anti-Spyware & Adware Technology

     
  • At 4:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I know this is an old entry, but I came upon it in a Google search so it's still being looked at and I thought I would comment on it...

    I wouldn't worry too much about Psychological Reports; it isn't all that well-regarded among psychology journals. Here is a link to an article examining the quality of journals Paul Cameron publishes in:

    http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_journals.html

    I have also read that you can pay to have your work published in PR, and can basically circumvent the peer review process that way...don't know if that's true or not, just a rumor.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home