AAAS declines to review controversial child-sexual abuse study

By Rhea K. Farberman
Monitor executive editor

For more than 10 months, the June 1998 issue of Psychological Bulletin aroused little or no controversy; but since March, it has probably become one of the most widely read journal issues of recent memory.

Attracting the attention was a study entitled "A meta-analytic examination of assumed properties of child sexual abuse using college samples," by Bruce Rind, PhD, Philip Tromovitch, and Robert Bauserman, PhD. The study, based on a meta-analysis of 59 other studies, concluded that not all young adults who had had sexual experiences with adults when they were children reported negative consequences from the experience, and some reported the experience as neutral or positive.

These conclusions, which were interpreted in the conservative press as virtually condoning sexual abuse, stoked a firestorm among some religious groups and from some members of Congress, who denounced the authors and the editors, and criticized APA for publishing the article.

APA moved aggressively to explain the peer-review process and how editorial and publishing decisions are made and to reiterate the association's policy position that sexual relations between adults and children are harmful to children, but this did little to stop the attacks on APA and on the article.

In response to charges by some members of Congress that the article was "flawed" and represented "junk science," APA took the unprecedented step of asking the Committee on Scientific Freedom and Responsibility of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) to review the scientific merits of the study. AAAS considered the request for several months, but in October, informed APA that it would not review the study.

In a letter to APA Executive Director for Science Richard McCarty, PhD, Irving Lerch, PhD, chair of the AAAS committee said, "We see no reason to second guess the process of peer review used by the APA journal in its decision to publish the article in question. While not without its imperfections, peer review is well established as a standard mechanism for maintaining the flow of scientific information that scientists can refer to, critique or build on. After examining all the materials available to the committee, we saw no clear evidence of improper application of methodology or other questionable practices on the part of the article's authors."

Noting the importance of peer review in advancing science, McCarty, observed that the working assumption of science is that every published statement is subject to question and may be challenged at any time.

"It is these assumptions that assure the self-correcting nature of science," says McCarty. "Every study builds on prior studies, and may be supported or refuted by those that follow. Peer review is an essential element of the scientific process, since the informed judgment of expert colleagues increases the probability that the published studies are methodologically sound and substantively important to the scientific community."

"The validity of the process," says Raymond D. Fowler, PhD, APA CEO and editor of the American Psychologist, "is contingent on the editorial independence of our journals. The only justifiable basis for deciding to publish an article is that it advances the discipline. Peer review and editorial autonomy help to assure that publishing decisions are informed, objective and uninfluenced by extraneous variables."

Fowler emphasized that APA has respected the editorial independence of its editors for more than 100 years and will continue to do so.

He added that the association, as the public voice of psychology, has a responsibility to consider, articulate and present to the public and policy-makers the public policy implications of psychological research.

In his letter to McCarty, AAAS's Lerch wrote, "Our committee believes that this particular case highlights two distinct responsibilities. First, scientists must be sensitive to the implications of their work for the larger society and take steps to educate their non-scientist readers about the relationship of their work to the broader community. The professional associations, as the custodians of a discipline's core values and distinct traditions and as publishers of much of the basic knowledge produced by the profession, must assume a leadership role in instituting policies and procedures that enable its members to communicate the findings of controversial research in a way that anticipates its impact on policy, or more generally on the lives of people."

"Second, the Committee believes that scientists have a responsibility to counter misuse of their work. We strongly support the APA's standard that "If psychologists learn of misuse or misrepresentation of their work, they take reasonable steps to correct or minimize the misuse or misrepresentation" (Ethical Principles of Psychologists, Standard 1.16). Correcting misuse is not merely a matter of professional self-interest; it is critical to enhanced public understanding of what is at stake and to the development of sound public policy."

To counter possible misuse of the material in the article by Rind et al, APA is developing an amicus brief that could be presented in court cases involving child sexual abuse.

The increased accessibility of the psychological literature to the pubic via the Internet conveys both greater responsibilities and wider opportunities, says Fowler.

"If we present our finding in ways that the public does not understand, we risk being misinterpreted and mistrusted. On the other hand, the Internet provides an unparalleled opportunity to inform the public of important psychological information. The fact that APA's web page receives 2 million 'hits' a week shows that there is a lot of interest in what psychology has to say."



Read our privacy statement and Terms of Use

Cover Page for this Issue

PsychNET®
© 1999 American Psychological Association

APA Home Page . Search . Site Map