I’m sure someone else here will give this, from The Chronicle Of Higher Education, the attention it deserves…
Controversial Gay-Parenting Study Is Severely Flawed, Journal’s Audit Finds
…but this one passage leaped out at me while reading it:
Regnerus wrote in a blog post that he is “at a point in my career where I’m less concerned about making my professional peers happy.”
Mark…your professional peers are the folks in the National Organization of Marriage. Your professional peers are the folks in the Family Research Council. Your professional peers are Paul Cameron and Scott Lively. Your professional peers are Peter LaBarbera, Byran Fischer, and Tony Perkins. Be assured, they’re just delighted with you.
“Regnerus wrote in a blog post that he is “at a point in my career where I’m less concerned about making my professional peers happy.”
Translation: I don’t care about actual science, which takes effort and has rules. I can make money and impress my bigot friends by producing pseudo-science.
This was my favourite bit from the Chronicle article:
“[Darren E. Sherkat, a professor of sociology at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale—] was given access to all the reviews and correspondence connected with the paper, and was told the identities of the reviewers. According to Sherkat, Regnerus’s paper should never have been published. His assessment of it, in an interview, was concise: “It’s b******t,” he said.”
Priceless.
:)