Scientific Research and Political Correctness

There are many politically correct assumptions that when challenged by research or even just vetting a new theory, cause serious backlash. I'll list a few:

• Sexual orientation is genetic
• Gender confusion is biological and genetic
• Gender roles are exclusively socially mediated
• I.Q. is the same between races, ethnicities and gender
• Evolution explains differentiation between species
• Soldiers are violent, ignorant, psychopaths
  
• Family structure does not affect developmental outcomes
• Child development is not significantly affected by parental interaction
  
• Child development is not significantly affected by the absence of a parent through divorce
• Humans cause global warming
• Public education is the best way to educate children
• Mental illness is biological and genetic
• White men are violent rapists
  

Researchers daring to question accepted dogma will be subjected to attacks both personal and professional. For example, J. Michael Bailey challenged some cherished beliefs regarding transgendered people and this is one example of the backlash:

The site also included a link to the Web page of another critic of Dr. Bailey’s book, Andrea James, a Los Angeles-based transgender advocate and consultant. Ms. James downloaded images from Dr. Bailey’s Web site of his children, taken when they were in middle and elementary school, and posted them on her own site, with sexually explicit captions that she provided. (Dr. Bailey is a divorced father of two.) Ms. James said in an e-mail message that Dr. Bailey’s work exploited vulnerable people, especially children, and that her response echoed his disrespect.

Anyone who has spent much time on the web knows that personal attacks of a sexual nature are par for the course. Ironically, the attacks often originate from those who claim membership in groups that used to be victims of persecution. This very thing happened to Jeff Goldstein. A lesbian woman named Deb Frisch threatened his family and used sexually violent language describing his toddler son. (He's at again, challenging the notions of masculinity.) Other bloggers sharing opinions that differ from the politically correct have likewise been subjected to written, sexually explicit violence.

The violent rhetoric is nothing short of bullying. The intention is to silence diverse opinions and to rob a dissenting person of his or her voice. While these actions are disturbing in the Wild West atmosphere of the web, most bloggers have the inner fortitude to continue. They have free choice. They may suffer D.O.S. (denial of service attacks--where the website is flooded with links or hits to overwhelm the servers that support the site, so anyone searching for it will be denied service) or other acts of aggression, but they can prevail.

In the world of research and academia, however, a scientist's ability to continue to explore new theories can be quashed and the long-term ramifications should worry thinking people:

The inquiry, which lasted almost a year, brought research to a near standstill in Dr. Bailey’s laboratory, and clouded his name among some other researchers, according to people who worked with the psychologist.

“That was the worst blow of all, that we didn’t get much support” from Northwestern, said Gerulf Rieger, a graduate student of Dr. Bailey’s at the time, and now a lecturer at Northwestern. “They were quite scared and not very professional, I thought.”

A spokesman for the university declined to comment on the investigation, which concluded in 2004.

One collaborator broke with Dr. Bailey over the controversy, Dr. Bailey said. Others who remained loyal said doing so had a cost: two researchers said they were advised by a government grant officer that they should distance themselves from Dr. Bailey to improve their chances of receiving financing.

“He told me it would be better if I played down any association with Bailey,” said Khytam Dawood, a psychologist at Pennsylvania State University.

So grant money is used to manipulate those with differing theories and cutting-edge research. Essentially, anyone with a new thought or idea that conflicts with present dogma or politically correct opinion finds himself isolated, unfunded and reviled by the scientific community. It is the equivalent of being marked or shunned by a religious community.

Should this politically charged atmosphere continue in academia and the realm of science, scientific advances will stop here and now, because all the truth to be found has been found.