Science in support of a cause: the new research
Lately, advocates offer their data to advance views
WASHINGTON -- David Reardon wears two hats when it comes to abortion. He runs the Elliot Foundation, which wants Congress to impose strict barriers to abortion. But he is also a researcher whose studies on abortion have been in peer-reviewed journals. His latest, in a British journal, says that women who have had abortions are ''three times more likely to use illegal drugs during a subsequent pregnancy."
Reardon's findings support his proposal that abortion be defined as an act of ''medical negligence" if a physician does not warn patients about risk factors such as psychological problems.
This dual role of advocate/researcher is becoming more common, especially as advocacy groups realize they can sway more opinions by asserting that their research is based on science, rather than simply on personal belief. Reardon, like many people who play this dual role, insists he can objectively look at the data without being influenced by his personal viewpoint.
''A lot of science is advocacy-driven," Reardon said. ''The presumption, which scientists try to foster, is they are totally objective. We are all human. The beauty of science is that you present facts."
In recent years, many groups have sprung up to present research or medical advice that is intended to counter that distributed by larger, more established groups. For example, the Christian Medical and Dental Associations, which says it has 17,000 members, views itself as a counterpoint to the American Medical Association, publishing its own ''ethics statements" based on research by its members and others.
The statements use scientific research to justify their opposition to abortion, the morning-after birth control pill and homosexuality. The group's director, David Stevens, said many physicians have joined after becoming uncomfortable with positions taken by the larger medical groups and wanting ''to incorporate Christianity into medicine."
The National Physicians Center For Family Resources, meanwhile, says that taxpayer money should not be used to promote the use of condoms by unmarried individuals. The organization has a $25,000 taxpayer-financed contract to create a website for the US government on safe sex.
Dr. John Whiffen, the chairman of the center, said promoting condoms to prevent pregnancy or sexually transmitted disease is ''mind-boggling." He said he sees no problem with having a strong viewpoint against condoms, although, at the same time, his group is paid by the government to design a website on safe sex.
''It is reasonable to assume that if the president is in favor of abstinence, he is not going to hire a group" that promotes the use of condoms, Whiffen said. That has drawn criticism from Representative Henry Waxman, the California Democrat, who has written to the Bush administration that ''it is wrong -- and ultimately self-defeating --to sacrifice scientific accuracy in an effort to frighten teens and their parents."
Advocates for abortion rights also conduct medical research that buttresses their views.
Dr. Vanessa Cullins, vice president for medical affairs of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said her organization conducts medical research on abortion and birth control.
Asked if the group can assess medical research and advocate its view at the same time, Cullins said her group appears in widely known journals, while ''those who are against contraception and abortion publish their findings in what would be the equivalent of the National Enquirer."
Reardon, the antiabortion researcher, said such comments are unfair and show the need for research by alternative groups like his Elliot Foundation. ''Planned Parenthood has its own agenda," Reardon said, adding that his research is also published in peer-reviewed journals.
Meanwhile, The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, which cites medical evidence to oppose right-to-die cases, says it was founded after ''more than a dozen leading Christian bioethicists gathered to assess the noticeable lack of explicit Christian engagement in the crucial bioethics arena." This year, the center's director of biotech ethics, Dr. William Cheshire, disputed court-appointed doctors who diagnosed Terri Schiavo as being in a vegetative state. Cheshire said Schiavo had responded to some stimuli, a view quoted by Governor Jeb Bush.
An autopsy found that the court-appointed doctors had been correct.
Before Schiavo's death, some critics questioned whether Cheshire was basing his appraisal of her condition on his religious beliefs. The center said last week that Cheshire would not comment. The center's director, John Kilner, said, ''People shouldn't be disqualified from entering public discussions just because they have certain beliefs."
