Beliefs drive research agenda of new think tanks

Study on gay adoption disputed by specialists

Boston Globe
July 30, 2005
By Michael Kranish

This long article provides excellent exposure of discredited “researcher” Paul Cameron, the source of the claims made by “Concerned Women for America” and the Dick Black/Eugene Delgaudio/Steve Baldwin franchise. It’s important for people to understand that counterfeit groups like “Family Research Institute” are not comparable to legitimate professional associations and should never be cited as if they are.

WASHINGTON — President Bush had a ready answer when asked in January for his view of adoption by same-sex couples: ”Studies have shown that the ideal is where a child is raised in a married family with a man and a woman,” the president said.

Bush’s assertion raised eyebrows among specialists. The American Academy of Pediatrics, composed of leaders in the field, had found no meaningful difference between children raised by same-sex and heterosexual couples, based on a 2002 report written largely by a Boston pediatrician, Dr. Ellen C. Perrin.

On tiny, ideological think tanks like the one created by Cameron to disseminate his propaganda:

. . Created as counterpoints to large, well-established medical organizations whose work is subject to rigorous review and who assert no political agenda, the tiny think tanks with names often mimicking those of established medical authorities have sought to dispute the notion of a medical consensus on social issues such as gay rights, the right to die, abortion, and birth control.

For example, Cameron’s Family Research Institute, with an annual budget of less than $200,000, tries to counter the views of the 150,000-member American Psychological Association, which has an annual budget of $98 million. The tiny American College of Pediatricians has a single employee, yet it has been quoted as a counterpoint to the 60,000-member American Academy of Pediatrics. .

Here Cameron openly admits that his “research” has a predetermined agenda that determines his conclusions. Hmm . . maybe the fact that his work violates the definition of science has something to do with it not being published in any legitimate journals?

. . In several interviews and e-mail exchanges, Cameron made no effort to hide his view of gays and lesbians.

He said his research is meant to warn that gays and lesbians and those sympathetic to them are people he calls ”death marketers.” ”I am not sure how long they will take to destroy the US from within, but sufficiently weakened, the US will probably fall to another state before that occurs,” Cameron wrote via e-mail.

“Those of us at FRI are determined to do our best to oppose these death activists. As you see, the Internet has given us far more clout than our limited budget and efforts could otherwise hope for.”