F
fnr
Guest
I’m a Catholic who is also deeply devoted to science. While you may not have followed the discussions that some of my posts have engendered, from time to time, I’m posting scientific issues that address some of the moral and ethical issues we face as a Church in the modern world.
I think the state of public science on issues of sex and reproduction is in an abysmal state. In most other arenas of public discourse, there are well-funded think tanks on both “sides” of the debate. For example, in economics, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) are two think tanks that are funded by anti-regulatory business groups on one hand (AEI) and unions on the other (IPS).
In the areas of reproductive health policy, however, there is only one real think tank, the Guttmacher Institute. The Guttmacher Institute has enormous and outsized influence on the science that informs the policy debate behind contraception, abortion, sexuality, and other issues. Though it was originally part of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), it developed into an independent, standalone research and policy organization with an annual budget of $17 million and staff of 81. Guttmacher publishes two peer-reviewed scientific journals, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health and International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, through which it exercises editorial influence. In my opinion, the Guttmacher Institute has been one of the most effective think tanks in American history.
Guttmacher is a think tank, not a strict research organization. It specializes in framing the debate, and trumpets how good it is at that fact. And it is brilliant at framing the debate in both media and political circles. For example, in its 2012 Annual Report, it reported:
From a political theology perspective, I think that importing partisan politics into the pro-life movement has been a mistake that has taken devout Catholics away from the biblical basis of political influence and St. Augustine’s vision of the City of God and City of Man being separate. As a result, partisan politics are not my primary concern.
Pro-life and faithful Catholic scientists that routinely publish in scientific journals are often independent and generally operate on their own. To my knowledge, there is only one real peer-reviewed scientific journal dedicated to Catholic health issues, the Linacre Quarterly, and it does not have a wide readership outside Catholic circles and draws submissions from very few researchers.
In public policy, the result of this imbalance in public framing of science is that a politician appealing to “science-based policy” is left with a research base that is almost entirely developed within the frame established by the Guttmacher Institute. For example, randomized trials that compare abstinence-only and “comprehensive sexual education” programs for minors generally find the latter to be much more effective. Researchers aligned with the Guttmacher message therefore say that “abstinence doesn’t work.” However, that’s only one way to frame the results. Another interpretation might be that short-term abstinence-only intervention programs are the equivalent of a pea-shooter compared with the Abrams tank of a media culture that strenuously argues against abstinence. One might reframe the debate by noting that children who grow up in practicing Catholic families are much less likely to become pregnant, get arrested, and complete college than children who don’t, and note that their average age sexual debut is significantly later than children in homes that aren’t religious.
I see an enormous hole in the public debate here. I’ve previously said that I think the pro-life movement has largely relied on science that wouldn’t pass the laugh test in most journals. Seminal and frequently-cited books by abortion researchers, such as Reardon’s Aborted Women: Silent No More, have usually been based on shoddy-at-best study designs and as such undermine the entire pro-life cause. Anti-abortion organizations have relied on a selective citation of information to inform the public debate. That pattern of behavior needs to stop.
I think the state of public science on issues of sex and reproduction is in an abysmal state. In most other arenas of public discourse, there are well-funded think tanks on both “sides” of the debate. For example, in economics, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) are two think tanks that are funded by anti-regulatory business groups on one hand (AEI) and unions on the other (IPS).
In the areas of reproductive health policy, however, there is only one real think tank, the Guttmacher Institute. The Guttmacher Institute has enormous and outsized influence on the science that informs the policy debate behind contraception, abortion, sexuality, and other issues. Though it was originally part of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), it developed into an independent, standalone research and policy organization with an annual budget of $17 million and staff of 81. Guttmacher publishes two peer-reviewed scientific journals, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health and International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, through which it exercises editorial influence. In my opinion, the Guttmacher Institute has been one of the most effective think tanks in American history.
Guttmacher is a think tank, not a strict research organization. It specializes in framing the debate, and trumpets how good it is at that fact. And it is brilliant at framing the debate in both media and political circles. For example, in its 2012 Annual Report, it reported:
On the Catholic side, there is no such organization. In general, the response by Catholics to issues of sex and reproduction is a combination of appeal to the Catechism, pro-life activism, and partisan engagement. In 1976, the pro-life movement selected the Republican Party to carry the pro-life message in its platform in the wake of the failed campaign by U.S. bishops to pass a Human Life Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Since then, electing pro-life candidates has been a major focus of many devout Catholics. Even the amazing Catholic Answers, which specializes in disseminating accurate information about the Catholic faith, stops short of addressing the underlying science that informs our public debates, and instead engages in political change through its VoteCatholic.org organization.
From a political theology perspective, I think that importing partisan politics into the pro-life movement has been a mistake that has taken devout Catholics away from the biblical basis of political influence and St. Augustine’s vision of the City of God and City of Man being separate. As a result, partisan politics are not my primary concern.
Pro-life and faithful Catholic scientists that routinely publish in scientific journals are often independent and generally operate on their own. To my knowledge, there is only one real peer-reviewed scientific journal dedicated to Catholic health issues, the Linacre Quarterly, and it does not have a wide readership outside Catholic circles and draws submissions from very few researchers.
In public policy, the result of this imbalance in public framing of science is that a politician appealing to “science-based policy” is left with a research base that is almost entirely developed within the frame established by the Guttmacher Institute. For example, randomized trials that compare abstinence-only and “comprehensive sexual education” programs for minors generally find the latter to be much more effective. Researchers aligned with the Guttmacher message therefore say that “abstinence doesn’t work.” However, that’s only one way to frame the results. Another interpretation might be that short-term abstinence-only intervention programs are the equivalent of a pea-shooter compared with the Abrams tank of a media culture that strenuously argues against abstinence. One might reframe the debate by noting that children who grow up in practicing Catholic families are much less likely to become pregnant, get arrested, and complete college than children who don’t, and note that their average age sexual debut is significantly later than children in homes that aren’t religious.
I see an enormous hole in the public debate here. I’ve previously said that I think the pro-life movement has largely relied on science that wouldn’t pass the laugh test in most journals. Seminal and frequently-cited books by abortion researchers, such as Reardon’s Aborted Women: Silent No More, have usually been based on shoddy-at-best study designs and as such undermine the entire pro-life cause. Anti-abortion organizations have relied on a selective citation of information to inform the public debate. That pattern of behavior needs to stop.