Research findings are regularly cited to support political positions, yet not all research should carry the same weight, according to "The Uses and Abuses of Science in Sexual and Reproductive Health Policy Debates," by Adam Sonfield, which appears in the November 2005 issue of The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy. Scientific standards should be reemphasized to ensure that evidence is not manipulated to promote a political position, particularly around controversial issues such as sexual and reproductive health.
Sonfield illustrates the questionable use of science with several examples, including recent competing studies on the effectiveness of virginity pledges. In March 2005, Hannah Brückner of Yale University and Peter Bearman of Columbia University reported in the peer-reviewed Journal of Adolescent Medicine that adolescents who had pledged to abstain from sex until marriage had rates of sexually transmitted infection (STIs) as young adults that were no different, statistically, than those of nonpledgers. Their conclusions were based upon the results of urine tests for STI infection among both groups of young adults.
In June, a pair of conference papers from Robert Rector and Kirk Johnson of the Heritage Foundation contradicted these findings. Rector and Johnson based their conclusions on the young adults’ own reports of whether or not they had had an STI. In the ensuing public debate, the two studies were generally treated as equally trustworthy, but there were important differences in the studies’ methods, as well as in the degree of external review they underwent.
"Most researchers don’t rely on self-reports to measure infection rates, since people may not know—or may be unwilling to admit—that they have an STI. This could be even more true for virginity pledgers," explains David Landry, senior research associate at the Guttmacher Institute. "That’s one reason why we have encouraged Rector and Johnson to submit their findings for peer review—so other experts can take a closer look at their methods and suggest ways they can improve their analyses."
Sonfield explains that external review and other protections built into the process of scientific publishing help ensure that research meets high methodological standards and reduces the chances that scientists’ personal biases distort their findings. Also, he emphasizes the importance to the scientific method of consensus building—a value sometimes at odds with polarized political debates.
"Creating policy based on scientific evidence is a vast improvement over making important decisions based solely on ideology or emotion," says Sonfield. "Yet journalists, advocates and policymakers all have an obligation to carefully review the evidence they use, to avoid exaggerating and distorting the implications of research and to trust the conclusions of individuals and organizations not because they have a particular ideology, but because they have a track record of responsible research and analysis."
Also in this issue:
"Providing Basic Genetic Services: What Role for Family Planning Clinics?" by Rachel Benson Gold;
"Teenagers’ Access to Confidential Reproductive Health Services," by Cynthia Dailard and Chinué Turner Richardson;
"Advocates Question Plan B Age Restriction After FDA Again Delays Decision," by Heather Boonstra; and
"Administration Tightens Rules for Abstinence Education Grants," by Cynthia Dailard.