Follow breaking news @lgbtqnation

University of Texas panel: No scientific misconduct in anti-gay parenting study

Saturday, September 1, 2012

AUSTIN, Texas — A University of Texas advisory panel consisting of four senior faculty members has concluded that the author of an anti-gay parenting study had not published nor committed falsification of data, plagiarism or other ethical breaches constituting scientific misconduct.

As a result, the panel found that no formal investigation of allegations against Mark Regnerus — an associate professor of sociology who had published the study back in June — is warranted.

In his study, which has been widely denounced by LGBT advocacy groups, RRegnerus claimed “that the adult children of gay parents reported significantly different, and often worse, life experiences than the children of married, heterosexual biological parents.”

Mark Regnerus

“I think it’s a just and wise decision, and I’m certainly pleased with it,” Regnerus told the Austin American-Statesman, in an email. “It was a thorough and fair process, and conducted professionally.”

A number of sociologists and gay marriage advocates objected to Regnerus’ findings, contending that they subverted a decade of research.

The critics also questioned his methodology, the peer review process and the fact that the study was paid for by two conservative groups, the Witherspoon Institute and the Bradley Foundation. An internal draft audit by Social Science Research, the journal that published the study, found “serious flaws” in the peer review process and concluded that the journal never should have published his report.

One of the leading critics of the study, freelance writer Scott Rosensweig, who uses the byline Scott Rose, leveled allegations of scientific misconduct in a letter to UT President Bill Powers.

After consultation with Robert A. Peterson, a research integrity officer in the UT Office of the Vice President for Research, Powers ordered the inquiry.

Rosensweig charged among other things that the anti-gay-rights Witherspoon Institute long cultivated a relationship, with Regnerus before approaching him to commission a study that would demonize gay people and be available in time for pernicious exploitation during the 2012 elections.

“Top officials of the anti-gay-rights Witherspoon Institute also have positions of authority over the anti-gay-rights National Organization for Marriage (NOM),” wrote Rosensweig.

“NOM’s founder and mastermind Robert P. George, moreover, is a senior fellow with the anti-gay-rights Witherspoon Institute, as well as a board member of the Family Research Council (FRC), a Southern Poverty Law Center-certified anti-gay hate group known for spreading malicious falsehoods against its umpteen millions of victims, the entire LGBT community and heterosexuals supportive of LGBTers’ equality.

“Since the publication of the fraudulent Regnerus study, enemies of gay rights — led by Robert George‘s anti-gay-rights Witherspoon Institute, NOM and FRC – have been using the “study” as a basis for their anti-gay fear-and-hate-mongering disinformation campaigns.”

Rosensweig disputed UT’s review results, noting that some peer reviewers of the study were also paid consultants, which he labeled “a most serious matter.”

Peterson told the American-Statesman that he felt that the question of whether Regnerus’ study has serious flaws is one best left to debate among scholars, future research and an expected release by Regnerus of the data underlying his research.

UT had hired Alan Price, a former chief research fraud investigator for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and now working as a private consultant, to monitor the inquiry.

In a statement, Price said that the inquiry was handled “consistent with the University policy and procedures for scientific misconduct” as well as “consistent with federal regulatory requirements of inquiries into research misconduct.”

Share this article with your friends and followers:

Archives: , , ,

Filed under: Texas

17 more reader comments:

  1. I bet if the study had been done at UCLA it would have turned out very, very differently. The good news is that theories and research findings have to be repeatable by other, independent researchers to be considered valid.

    Posted on Saturday, September 1, 2012 at 12:44pm
  2. W-T-F!!!

    Posted on Saturday, September 1, 2012 at 12:45pm
  3. Do they NOT value the science credentials at their own school?

    Posted on Saturday, September 1, 2012 at 12:53pm
  4. Also, from a research design perspective, the comparison to two-parent biological parent families seems odd to me. Assuming one attempts to hold everything constant except the independent variable, wouldn’t you want to compare adopted children raised in two-parent households who had either gay or straight parents? Also, two-biological parent households aren’t really the norm in American society at large, and thus don’t fairly represent the diversity of both heterosexual and lgbt families. Certainly, if he really doesn’t have an agenda and wants to know about differences in long-term outcomes for children raised in different types of family structures, then these comparisons should also be of interest and had been included.

    Posted on Saturday, September 1, 2012 at 12:58pm
  5. ummm isn’t it a social science study?

    Posted on Saturday, September 1, 2012 at 1:02pm
  6. This is not defensible academically.

    Posted on Saturday, September 1, 2012 at 1:04pm
  7. Because he was backed by two organizations that are extremely anti-gay didn’t set off any alarms for people?

    Posted on Saturday, September 1, 2012 at 1:06pm
  8. It’s the university protecting itself. No doubt the fact that it was backed by large grants, whatever the source, also played in his favor.

    Posted on Saturday, September 1, 2012 at 1:10pm
  9. I think he is homophobic and not at all playing with a full deck.

    Posted on Saturday, September 1, 2012 at 1:22pm
  10. If you teach anti-anything its false info

    Posted on Saturday, September 1, 2012 at 1:35pm
  11. So all of it would be invalid

    Posted on Saturday, September 1, 2012 at 1:36pm
  12. You are either for or against – If you are for, thank you. If you are against, learn to live with it. 99% of the people who are against had rather live a life of hate than live a life of love which Jesus taught. How do you explained your feelings of denying someone love?

    Posted on Saturday, September 1, 2012 at 2:13pm
  13. All that this study shows is that kids from dysfunctional families are more likely to turn out dysfunctional themselves. I think it ‘passed muster’ only in that the author was honest about just how he reached his flawed conclusions. The people who continue to cite this study deliberately twist it’s already tortured conclusions.

    Posted on Saturday, September 1, 2012 at 2:41pm
  14. This is a shit study and miss leads people with their findings. Typical from Texas but what would most people expect from Texas.

    Posted on Saturday, September 1, 2012 at 4:29pm
  15. Any study with a bias and a design on causation is no study. Ask McCarthy

    Posted on Saturday, September 1, 2012 at 7:02pm
  16. I’m from Texas and I find this outrageous.

    Posted on Saturday, September 1, 2012 at 8:35pm
  17. sociology is science? :)

    Posted on Sunday, September 2, 2012 at 5:22am