When you point out what previous research missed in private industry, industrialists are generally grateful. For one thing, new discoveries save them money.
In contrast, in the Alice In Wonderland  world that is academia today, such breakthroughs make you a pariah. Mark Regnerus , a sociologist at the University of Texas at Austin, is in such a position right now.
He found that children from same-sex households were, contrary to academic beliefs, more likely to use drugs or alcohol or engage in criminal activity than children from heterosexual households. When his findings were published in Social Research, an academic journal, homosexual activists pounced on them, figuratively speaking.
“Other studies showed no difference,” Jennifer Marshall, a policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation said at the bloggers’ briefing there on August 14, 2012. The most widely quoted of the “no difference” studies came from the American Psychological Association (APA). The California judge who overturned the ballot initiative reaffirming traditional marriage, for example, cited the APA findings in his ruling.
The other studies, Marshall noted, used smaller samples and were arguably not representative. They surveyed hundreds of homes and focused on lesbians.
Regnerus sampled thousands and looked at same-gender relationships for both genders. Nevertheless, “the editor of Social Research, who is probably a Democrat, has been viciously attacked for publishing the study,” Marshall said.
Malcolm A. Kline is the Executive Director of Accuracy in Academia .
If you would like to comment on this article, e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org .