New Scientific Research revisited

In the category of “Old Business.”

On July 23, I asked blog readers what the phrase “new scientific research” meant.

Here is what some of you said:

New: Recently reported (not in media for more than 3 months)

Scientific: Can document measuring criteria, tested, revealing a need to do further research

Research: Primary Data

If it’s new, it’s not a review of past literature.

Data that hasn’t been reported before.

Not –

A literature review

A meta-analysis

A re-analysis of data that has been previously been reported with a different analysis.

Study with new data…Not a literature review. Not a review to undermine the own viewpoints with no diversity view.

That’s what I think too. Therefore I was surprised to see NARTH headline their recent press release for the summary paper, “What Research Shows…” as

New Scientific Research Refutes Unsubstantiated Claims Regarding Homosexuality

The problem is that there is no new scientific research in the paper. The paper itself is not new scientific research but rather a collection of prior studies.

I asked NARTH leaders about the decision to call their paper “new scientific research.” I did learn in the process that the NARTH Governing Board had reviewed the press release and title and approved it. When I pressed about why the paper was called “new scientific research,” NARTH past-president Dean Byrd then wrote to me twice say that he did not have time to answer the question.