Bad Seed or Bad Science: The Story of the Notorious Jukes Family

BINNEWATER, N.Y. — For more than a century, the Jukes clan has been presented as America's most despised family. Social science researchers long believed they were a case study of dysfunction, a bunch of genetically linked paupers, criminals, harlots, epileptics and mental defectives, whose care had placed a huge financial burden on taxpayers. The family's pedigree was used for decades as a textbook example of how heredity shaped human behavior and helped lead to calls for compulsory sterilization, segregation, lobotomies and even euthanasia against the "unfit."

Over the years, several historians and biologists have criticized the methodology of two Jukes studies as flawed and have said that many of their conclusions were fabricated. But the true identity of the family — who were dubbed the "Jukeses" by researchers — has remained a mystery, their names hidden by a code devised by the original investigators.

But now new information about the Jukeses has been found in archives at the State University of New York at Albany and in records of a forgotten Ulster County poorhouse. It turns out that many family members were neither criminals nor misfits, and that quite a few were even prominent members of Ulster County society.

This is a "major discovery because it provides closure to a badly flawed error in the interpretation of human behavior," said Elof Axel Carlson, professor of biochemistry and cell biology at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, who is an expert on the Jukes case. "In fact, they were not biologically flawed and doomed — they were simply poor scapegoats."

Investigations into the records began after a poorhouse graveyard the size of a football field was discovered in 2001 beneath a new fairground and swimming pool in New Paltz, which is in Ulster County. Some of the 2,300 unmarked graves from the poorhouse turned out to belong to members of the so-called Jukes family.

Garland E. Allen III, a professor of biology at Washington University in St. Louis, said that the Jukes episode was an example of how scientists have distorted research results for ideological and political reasons. "The whole study was done to bolster the eugenicists' preconceived notions," he said.

The Jukes story started in July 1874, when Richard L. Dugdale, a gentleman-sociologist, visited the Ulster County jail as a volunteer inspector for the New York Prison Association. He learned that six people being held there under four family names were blood relatives. Digging further, he found that of 29 males who were their "immediate blood relations," 17 had been arrested and 15 convicted of crimes.

After culling data from the records of local poorhouses, courts and jails, Dugdale produced a book, "The Jukes: A Study in Crime, Pauperism, Disease and Heredity," in 1877.

In it he claimed to have traced the family's Hudson Valley roots back seven generations to a colonial frontiersman named Max, whom he described as having been born between 1720 and 1740, a descendant of early Dutch settlers, who lived in the backwoods as a "hunter and fisher, a hard drinker, jolly and companionable, averse to steady toil." He traced the branch that had produced so many criminals back to a woman he called "Margaret, the Mother of Criminals," who had married one of Max's sons.

Presenting detailed genealogical charts with capsule descriptions of each member, whom he identified only by first name or code, Dugdale concluded that the family was chronically beset with all kinds of social ills. He estimated that their care had cost the taxpayers, through relief, medical care, police arrests and imprisonment, a total of $1.3 million (about $20.9 million in today's dollars).

In his analysis, he pondered whether heredity or environment was responsible for the family's habitually degraded state.

His study was hailed as a landmark work in social science, in part because it employed extensive field research to try to address the question of whether hereditary or environmental factors were more responsible for crime, poverty and other social ills.

For decades, many scholars overlooked the study's faults, for example, the fact that Dugdale didn't adequately specify his sources or explain his methodology.

Nicole Hahn Rafter, a professor of criminology at Northeastern University and an expert on the eugenics movement, pointed out in an interview that, to be fair, Dugdale himself had acknowledged in his book that the Jukeses were not a single clan, but rather a composite of 42 families. He had also noted that only 540 of his 709 subjects were apparently related by blood.

Professor Carlson contended in his book "The Unfit: A History of a Bad Idea" (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 2001), that Dugdale had "really claimed that what was inherited was a bad environment rather than a bad physiology."

Nevertheless, Dugdale's work was often misrepresented as being solidly hereditary. Eventually, it helped furnish some of the basis for the new scientific and social movement of eugenics that started in 1880's and achieved the status of a craze in the early 20th century.

In 1911, some eugenicists discovered Dugdale's original charts and notes, including the actual names of the Jukeses. They rushed the records to the Eugenics Record Office in Cold Spring Harbor, the leading eugenics research facility operated by the Carnegie Institution, where a field worker, Arthur H. Estabrook, was assigned the task of reviewing the records and updating the study.

The family's real names were kept hidden, but Estabrook said he had confirmed Dugdale's study and used the records to trace 2,111 Jukeses in addition to the 709 that Dugdale had described, bringing the total number of people studied to 2,820. His book, "The Jukes in 1915," reported that 1,258 Jukeses were still alive and reproducing — at a cost to the public of at least $2 million (about $35.2 million today).

Although Estabrook's own data indicated that the family had actually shown fewer problems over time, the Eugenics Record Office pronounced the latter-day Jukeses to be as "unredeemed" and as plagued by "feeblemindedness, indolence, licentiousness and dishonesty" as they had ever been.

Pedigrees of some branches of the Jukes family and anonymous photographs of them and their homes were displayed at the Second International Congress of Eugenics, held at the American Museum of Natural History in New York in 1921. "The Jukes" and "The Jukes in 1915" joined a growing list of sociological studies claiming to investigate other defective American families.

Jan Witkowski, director of the Bamburg Center of Cold Spring Laboratory, said the Jukes studies assumed an iconic status in eugenics before World War II.

But the published studies could not be verified or challenged because the subjects were not identified by surname or location.

Today, however, some of Estabrook's papers are available to researchers at the M. E. Grenander department of special collections and archives at SUNY Albany. One of the documents included is an 88-page typewritten code book — titled "Jukes Data" and labeled "Classified" — that lists the surnames used in Dugdale's and Estabrook's studies.

Some of those listed, which number in the hundreds, include Sloughter, Plough, Miller, DuBois, Clearwater, Bank and Bush.

On the basis of Estabrook's code book, Max, the "founder," was identified as Max Keyser.

Neither study identified any of Max's antecedents, but local records show that Dirck Corneliesen Keyser, one of the area's earliest Dutch settlers, had built the first house in Rosendale, in 1680. Also (unnoted by Dugdale and Estabrook), some later Keysers became lawyers, real estate brokers and other respected Ulster County citizens.

Estabrook's code book also identified Max's daughter Ada, or "Margaret, the Mother of Criminals," as Margaret Robinson Sloughter, born about 1755. Estabrook said Ada's husband, Lem, "is commonly reputed to be a lineal, although illegitimate descendant of a colonial governor of New York," but he didn't identify the governor, citing a need for confidentiality.

Nowadays, many biologists and historians are more critical of Estabrook's work than they are of Dugdale's.

"It's not that we're looking back and judging people according to criteria of today that didn't apply earlier," Professor Allen said in an interview. "Estabrook and others like him knew at the time that they were doing wrong, but they did it anyway, because they were caught up in the movement of their day." Scientists since Dugdale and Estabrook have learned more about genetic familial disorders and the molecular biology of physical birth defects, but debates still rage about the dominance of environmental or hereditary factors in shaping human behavioral traits.

Despite their limitations, the Jukes studies and some of their implications live on. "The mythology of so-called `genetically problematic families' is still with us," said Paul A. Lombardo of the Center for Biomedical Ethics at the University of Virginia. "Even today, the Jukeses seem to be getting a third life on the Internet as we see some religious and political groups invoking them as examples of inherited immorality."

From a review of Dr. Judith Reisman’s Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences:

In 1948, the Institute for Sex Research at Indiana University was led by eugenicist Alfred C. Kinsey, whose sex research shook America’s moral foundation and launched the 1960’s Sexual Revolution. Fifty years later new revelations confirm Dr. Judith’s Reisman’s 1981 expose of scientific fraud and criminally derived data contained in the publicly funded Kinsey Reports. Dr. Reisman’s revealed that Kinsey conducted human experiments in a soundproof laboratory built to his specifications at Indiana University, and that the sexual abuse of at least 317 infants and young boys was scientific protocol for Kinsey’s 1948 report. Dr. Reisman discloses for the first time the ongoing consequences to the American people and the world based on Kinsey’s deliberately skewed research. Kinsey died in 1956 but his Institute endures today under the expanded title "The Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction," suggesting an even more ominous threat to human rights and liberty.

KINSEY, CRIMES AND CONSEQUENCES: REISMAN HITS A GRAND SLAM

by Tim A. Meshginpoosh, 06/25/1998

If Congress does not pursue an investigation of the Kinsey Institute, then they should call off the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky investigations. Dr. Judith Reisman has meticulously exposed this saddest chapter in American academic history in her new book Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences. While Hitler and his ilk were torturing Jewish children in sadistic medical experiments, former Indiana University zoology professor Alfred Kinsey did the same thing to over hundreds of American children, at taxpayer expense.

While former Kinsey co-researchers Wardell Pomeroy and Paul Gebhard attempt to put a positive spin on Kinsey, Reisman exposes him for who he was: a fraudulent scientist obsessed with adultery, homosexuality, sadomasochism, and compulsive masturbation. His research was shoddy at best and criminal at worst.

Let's suppose a professor--wishing to study human sexuality--oversaw the rape of over 300 women for the purpose of analyzing their responses. Imagine the rightful outcry from the feminist establishment!

This is exactly why the liberal silence on Kinsey sex studies is puzzling: Dr. Kinsey oversaw the molestation of over 300 children. Keep in mind that this very "research" served as the basis for Kinsey's twofold gospel of sexology: Sexuality in the Human Male (1948) and Sexuality in the Human Female (1953).

Meanwhile, Pomeroy and Gebhard continue to defend their former boss, shamelessly admitting their coercion of infants and children in their "orgasm" experiments. Reisman points out that in Happy Day v. Kentucky, Pomeroy admitted--under oath--to seeking funding from the pornography industry to produce his own child pornography. Pomeroy, a board member of Penthouse Forum Variations, has written articles promoting incest and adult-child sex. Gebhard--in an interview with Penthouse--deemed incest as harmless.

Both Gebhard and Pomeroy have allowed their fantasies to exacerbate their ignorance: the British Medical Journal has published studies reflecting that over 50% of children born of incest are diseased, stillborn, or mentally retarded.

The Kinsey studies are empirically worthless. With astounding insight, Reisman shows that at least 86% of Kinsey's male interviewees were sexual deviants, many of them convicted sex offenders. He left out nearly 25% of his female interviewees. His interviews completely neglected married, monogamous, heterosexual couples; his research was overwhelmingly stacked with homosexuals, pedophiles, and other degenerates.

Of course, given Kinsey's own perversions--sadistic masturbation, wife swapping, homosexuality, orgies, and sadomasochism--one should not be surprised at his "results". Kinsey was no scientist; he was a pervert with a PhD who slam-dunked his amoral agenda on America under the guise of science, funded by the American taxpayer and the likes of Playboy.

To make matters worse, the academic world has treated Kinsey with kid gloves. Kinsey's studies--although severely criticized by the American Statistical Association--went virtually uncontested among scientists. Dr. Reisman's original expose' on Kinsey--presented in Jerusalem in 1981--was largely condemned by the sexology community even though she merely presented Kinsey's own data, which includes Table 34 (data on infant/child orgasms).

Could it be that Team Kinsey--for all their crime and fraud--gave the academic world the results they wanted? Did Kinsey merely validate the perversions of America's scholarly elite?

Perhaps the resistance to investigate and Kinsey's atrocities stems from a fear of the consequences: to repudiate the Kinsey studies now would require a reversal of many cherished mantras accepted and worshipped by the academic, scientific, and legal communities.

The damage wrought by the Kinsey reports has been staggering. Many Americans complain why rapists and child molesters often receive light sentences. Answer: Kinsey. The legal community used his studies to re-engineer the Model Penal Code. End result: habitual sex offenders--such as Jesse Timmendequas--are given multiple opportunities to terrorize women and children. Joycelyn Elders' masturbatory agenda for childhood sex education was nothing new: Kinsey would have children engaging in sex before kindergarten!

After 50 years of denial and coverups by Pomeroy and Gebhard, Reisman has given ample cause to investigate the Kinsey Institute and Indiana University. Americans have the right, and obligation, to confront the truth and bury Kinsey's studies with their perverted mastermind.

At Nuremburg, we rightfully prosecuted scientists for committing criminal acts in the name of research; the time has come to hold Kinsey and his living associates--Gebhard and Pomeroy--to that same standard of justice.

It is time for Congress to make HR 2749--a bill calling for a public investigation of the Kinsey Institute--a top priority.

Taking the ABA off-screen: Judith Reisman wants Kinsey-happy association canned

Leonard Barker, writing in "Brandies and Frankfurter," quotes Justice Louis D. Brandies' statement that the laws of society largely direct its conduct -- its culture:

[T]he conduct of life is to so large an extent determined by the existing legal institutions that an understanding of the legal system must give you a clearer view of human affairs ... and aid you in comprehending the conditions and institutions by which you are surrounded.

Reflecting on Brandies' clear caution about the role of the law in directing societies, The New York Times reported the White House concern that the American Bar Association's near half-century of screening of potential judicial appointments was directing culture unsatisfactorily.

The ABA argues that its 15-member ABA team, no doubt the cream of the legal profession, have selflessly aided us peasantry by "serving as an unofficial screening panel for judicial nominees." When 27 percent of the ABA team ruled Judge Robert H. Bork was "unqualified" to serve as a U.S. Supreme Court justice, some conservatives questioned whether the ABA team served the public interests of middle-America or the special interests of liberal America?

In fact, the ABA used its prominent and well-known education arm -- the American Law Institute -- to "ease" the "unqualified" even fraudulent sex science data of the Kinsey Reports into state law books. The reports (1948-1953) purported to give the world its first look at what was scientifically verified "normal" human sexuality.

Since the data's entry into the law, sex offense laws have been relaxed or eliminated to the great detriment of women and children. The reason can be found documented in "Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences". The authority derived from the Kinsey Reports' false data comprised 100 percent of the understanding of sexual "normality" in the ABA's Model Penal Code.

As a result the ABA's model code jettisoned America's common-law protections for marriage, women and children as "anachronistic," "vindictive" and "unenforceable" and rushed headlong to embrace the Kinsey Reports' "anything goes" sexuality, which was anything but normal then or now.

So, how reliable and trustworthy are the ABA sages? Louis Schwartz, the chief author of the ABA's code on "sex offenses," gives some evidence in this regard when he wrote that the Kinsey Reports' sexuality data could be eased undetected "into the written law … in the course of a general revision of the penal code." Avoiding the legislative process (which is subject to the American voter) is best for those with revolution in mind. For, as Schwartz says, this "avoids the appearance of outright repudiation of conservative moral standards, by presenting the changes in a context of merely technical improvements."

Could it be that ABA elites subvert the democratic American process?

Soon after the ABA's revamping of the traditional victim-protecting law codes, child rapists as well as other sex offenders became "patients," while their victims were to become "complainants." This subversion of the law caused Ronald Reagan to write in 1981,

For most of the past thirty years [since 1951] justice has been unreasonably titled in favor of criminals and against their innocent victims. This tragic era can fairly be described as a period when victims were forgotten and crimes were ignored.

And this era persists today in more noxious ways. For, were the ABA judicial screeners the sages that they purport to be, certainly the revised code pushed by the association and the American Law Institute would see violent and sexual abuse decreased radically post-1955, when, absent the popular vote, state legislatures began to implement the Model Penal Code, never suspecting that the code was supported by deliberately false authority designed to subvert American laws protecting women and children.

Yet, from 1955 to today, there is a 993-percent increase in violent crime, 67 percent of sex abuse victims are now children and 64 percent of all forcible sodomy victims are now boys under 12 years old. Moreover, the unprecedented 15,866-percent increase in child sex abuse reports -- from 2,032 in 1976 to 324,440 in 1999 -- is not explained by any changes in population data.

From 1960-1999 the FBI shows a 418 percent increase in "forcible rape" (which excludes so-called "consensual" and violent statutory rape and all rape of girls and sodomy of boys under 12 years of age). This is a five-fold increase over murder (70 percent) during the same time period.

The ABA's Model Penal Code was adapted and/or adopted by every state in the nation, based on the trust America put in its authors' wisdom and authority.

Justice Brandeis, after over 50 years, we now have a clearer view of human affairs and comprehend "the conditions" by which we are now surrounded. The ABA has breached its professional duty to the nation and the nation has lost faith in the legal elites at its helm. The evidence is overwhelming: It is well past time to disband the ABA's "unofficial screening panel for judicial nominees" and recall the laws changed based on junk science.

Film star to portray
'sex reformer' Kinsey
Neeson urged to skip role as 'infamous pedophile propagandist'

Posted: December 9, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Art Moore
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com

One of Hollywood's leading men is risking his reputation with a plan to portray the "father of the sexual revolution," Alfred Kinsey, contends a chief critic of the late researcher.

Actor Liam Neeson

The Francis Ford Coppola biographical drama, set to begin production next spring, has tapped Irish-born star Liam Neeson to bring to life a man researcher Judith Reisman calls the "most infamous pedophile propagandist in scientific history."

The screenplay, with the working title "Kinsey's Report," was written by Oscar-winner Bill Condon of "Gods and Monsters" fame, who also will direct the film.

Condon, who says there would be "no Playboy or Dr. Ruth without [Kinsey's] liberating effects," promises it will not be an "art-house movie."

"I hope it's one of those movies that speaks about things," he said in an interview published by E! online. "It does feel like it's time to remind people of Kinsey's ideas, which I think are liberating. I hope there's an exhilarating feeling you get when you come out of the theater."

Open letter

But Reisman, author of "Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences," has sent an open letter of warning to Neeson, asserting that the film will place him in "a hideously inaccurate role, much like playing the monster Mengele as a mere controversial figure."

She wrote: "Mr. Neeson, an appealing and respected actor like you surely does not wish to be known for celebrating a man who directed massive child sexual abuse."

An assistant to Neeson's agent Ed Limato said Thursday that Reisman's letter was forwarded to the actor's "people," but they "cannot guarantee a response."

But later in the day, according to Reisman, Neeson's office requested a copy of a film produced by Britain's Yorkshire Television called "Kinsey's Paedophiles."

Alfred C. Kinsey

Reisman, who has critiqued Kinsey's research for more than 20 years, says Kinsey increasingly is discounted by scholars as a "pathetic sexual psychopath" whose data were derived from an unrepresentative proportion of the population – mostly prison inmates and sex offenders, including pedophiles. Kinsey concluded, for example, that 69 percent of white males had had at least one experience with a prostitute.

Kinsey biographer James H. Jones, former adviser to the Kinsey Institute at Indiana University, has admitted that Kinsey, the father of three children, was not the conventional academic and family man the university presented, but was sexually compromised. In his 1997 book "Alfred C. Kinsey: A Public/Private Life," which was excerpted by New Yorker magazine, the author describes the sex researcher as a sadomasochistic homosexual on a perverted mission. Kinsey produced pornography in his attic – filming his wife, male staff and their wives as performers – and sexually harassed his male students.

Reisman notes that Kinsey, who died in 1956, is praised by the North American Man-Boy Love Association for creating the "data" that support "the struggle we fight today." She finds his work as the basis for weakened laws and cultural norms that have helped foster a sharp rise in sex crimes against children, noting that 58,200 abductions by non-family members were recorded by the FBI in 1999, most of which involved sexual victimization.

In 1981, Reisman delivered a paper to the 5th World Congress on Sexuality, charging that the Kinsey Reports contained a record of human experiments conducted by pedophiles on hundreds, perhaps thousands, of children. The Kinsey study has been used to support the contention that sexual activity in children is natural and healthy and should not be repressed.

She points to pages 160-161 of Kinsey's 1948 book "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male," in which the children's "screams," their "convulsions," their "hysterical weeping," "fighting" and "striking the partner (adult)" are judged by Kinsey as reflecting "definite pleasure from the situation."

Kinsey Institute director John Bancroft maintains that the institute "has never carried out sexual experiments on children, either during Alfred Kinsey's time as director or since."

He has acknowledged, however, that the data on "speed of orgasm" and other details in Tables 31-34 of Kinsey's 1948 book could only have been collected through illegal activity. In a 1998 paper by Bancroft called "Kinsey and Children," he says the information "came from the carefully documented records of one man." Kinsey referred to the man as "Mr. Green," a pedophile who kept meticulous records of the 800 boys he molested between 1917 and 1948.

Reisman maintains, however, that the 1998 documentary "Kinsey's Paedophiles," which has never been shown in the U.S., documented that Kinsey solicited information from and directed the data gathering of many pedophiles.

"Mr. Bancroft eagerly dodges the fact that whether Kinsey used one rapist to tell the world that child sex is normal, or whether he recruited many rapists – which he did – it doesn't change the fact that there isn't a shred of scientific data that would support the notion of child sexuality," Reisman told WND.

In response to a 1998 resolution by the Indiana state legislature urging the assembly to not appropriate public funds to the institute, Bancroft said of Kinsey:

"He can be criticized for making use of information about children's sexual responses obtained from individuals who were criminally involved with those children, not because it was improper to do so, but because of the uncertain validity of such information. But the large part of his work remains a supreme example of dedicated scientific research which continues to be important and useful to all of those who are researching in the field."

Bancroft maintained that "however much Kinsey's scientific curiosity may have misled him, he did nothing wrong, 'criminal,' or 'fraudulent.' Some have criticized him for not reporting this man to the police. Any tendency to do such a thing, with this research subject or any other, would have been contrary to the whole ethical basis of his project, in which he persuaded people to share their sexual secrets in return for a guarantee of confidentiality."

Playing real people

Empire Online, which calls itself the UK's No. 1 film website, says of the Kinsey movie: "With production ready to start next March, ready yourself for a touch of sexual perversity, a measure of gender confusion and every kind of reproductive action. All in the name of scientific research, of course."

A recent interview with Neeson in the London Observer newspaper noted that the actor's best roles have been historical and eponymous figures, such as Oskar Schindler in "Schindler's List." When the interviewer described characters Neeson has played – such as Schindler, Rob Roy and Michael Collins – as men "struggling to do the right thing, despite their predisposition, usually in the face of societal constraints," the actor replied:

"In fact, next year, I'm gonna play Alfred Kinsey, the guy who did all the research on sexuality and sexual politics in America in the '50s. His results were astounding. Really big stuff. He got on the cover of Time magazine."

Neeson said he does not set out to play real people.

"What usually motivates me is the quality of the writing," he said. "But yeah, I guess I may subconsciously seek them out. These are people who stand for something, something that is good to remind audiences of. They had a code of ethics that you perhaps don't find anymore."

Big stars

Academy Award-winning actors Russell Crowe, Tom Hanks, Kevin Spacey and Harrison Ford "all flirted with the lead role in one of the hottest scripts making the rounds," according to Anderson Jones in his "Movie Scoops" column on E! online. George Clooney was asked to take the Kinsey role, but passed, according to Jones, who called the film project "a provocative, erotic and potentially controversial movie."

"Kinsey is this amazing character," said director Condon, according to Jones' report, "very, very complicated. It's an interesting, difficult part to cast. When it comes to sex, people come with a lot of baggage, and the challenge will be getting the baggage that fits Kinsey's. You need an actor who will bring you inside this character."

Condon said he also considered Ralph Fiennes, Jeff Bridges and Michael Douglas for the role.

Jones commented that the Kinsey film "appeals to actors looking for a challenge, because it's craftily structured around a series of flashbacks and flash-forwards, features explicit discussions about sexuality and hints of Kinsey's widely reported bisexuality."

The script is not new, Jones said. About 10 years ago, screenwriter Michael Davis wrote another script called Kinsey, which turned out to be a "practically unreadable light comedy that mined laughs from Dr. Kinsey's 'embarrassing' sexual peccadilloes."

The film, financed by Myriad Pictures, will be released in the U.S. by MGM's United Artists division. "Kinsey" is one of five Myriad-financed films to be produced by Coppola's American Zoetrope studios. The Hollywood Reporter notes that three of the five come from openly homosexual artists, including Condon.

Much at stake

For the Kinsey Institute, according to Reisman, the film likely will be seen as a boon to the institute's attempts to bolster Kinsey's reputation in the face of mounting criticism of his character and work.

"The Kinsey Institute is in very serious rehabilitation mode," Reisman said, noting that at a 50th anniversary celebration of Kinsey's first book, in 1998, an academic in the field of "sexology" stated that if Kinsey were undermined, it would "undermine everything we had been working on for all these years."

Bancroft announced in 1998 that the Ford Foundation had supplied a grant to help fund a media-relations firm to plan "a proactive strategy to counter the ongoing campaign to shut down the Kinsey Institute and discredit its founder."

In her book "Kinsey, Crimes, & Consequences," Reisman shows how Kinsey and his sex reports of 1948 and 1953 undergird the entire modern academic sexology field, including institutions such as Planned Parenthood and SIECUS, the Sex Information and Education Council of the U.S., which helped launch sex education in schools when it was founded in 1964.

The Kinsey Institute is clearly uneasy about probes into the Kinsey archive, according to one of Kinsey's most recent biographers, Englishman Jonathan Gathorne-Hardy.

In the Yorkshire film production on Kinsey, produced by award-winner Tim Tate, Gathorne-Hardy tells how he was given access to Kinsey's March 1956 files, which show the sex researcher's use of pedophiles.

Describing the Kinsey Institute as "nervous" because "its funding depends a lot on its reputation," Hardy said director Bancroft demanded that Hardy swear he never personally saw the documents.

Hardy's typewritten notes regarding the exchange with Bancroft said:

Must be written as if information got from [former director] Paul [Gebhard] and Bancroft. ... Don't reveal that [Kinsey] went on gathering histories [from these pedophiles] until 1954.

Hardy's notes on the file indicate several active pedophiles on Kinsey's list of aides:

[Kinsey] was deeply influenced by five pedophile headmasters who were quite clear they had very warm relationships, loving relationships with young adolescent boys of 12 or 13.

In her letter to Neeson, Reisman warned that Yorkshire Television would want to reissue its "unflattering documentary should you make this film."

"Please disengage yourself from this unworthy production, and please feel free to contact me should you want to talk or to see the extant documentation on any and all of the statements above," Reisman wrote. "Thank you."

More on Illegal Abortion Myths (By Dr. Frank Beckwith )

Anyone who keeps up with the many pro-choice demonstrations in the United States cannot help but see on pro-choice placards and buttons a drawing of the infamous coat hanger. This symbol of the pro-choice movement represents the many women who were harmed or killed because they either performed illegal abortions on themselves (i.e., the surgery was performed with a "coat hanger") or went to unscrupulous physicians (or "back-alley butchers"). Hence, as the argument goes, if abortion is made illegal, then women will once again be harmed. Needless to say, this argument serves a powerful rhetorical purpose. Although the thought of finding a deceased young woman with a bloody coat hanger dangling between her legs is -- to say the least -- unpleasant, powerful and emotionally charged rhetoric does not a good argument make.

The chief reason this argument fails is because it commits the fallacy of begging the question. In fact, as we shall see, this fallacy seems to lurk behind a good percentage of the popular arguments for the pro-choice position. One begs the question when one assumes what one is trying to prove. Another way of putting it is to say that the arguer is reasoning in a circle. For example, if one concludes that the Boston Celtics are the best team because no team is as good, one is not giving any reasons for this belief other than the conclusion one is trying to prove, since to claim that a team is the best team is exactly the same as saying that no team is as good.

The question-begging nature of the coat-hanger argument is not difficult to discern: only by assuming that the unborn are not fully human does the argument work. If the unborn are not fully human, then the pro-choice advocate has a legitimate concern, just as one would have in overturning a law forbidding appendicitis operations if countless people were needlessly dying of both appendicitis and illegal operations. But if the unborn are fully human, this pro-choice argument is tantamount to saying that because people die or are harmed while killing other people, the state should make it safe for them to do so.

Even some pro-choice advocates, who argue for their position in other ways, admit that the coat hanger/back-alley argument is fallacious. For example, pro-choice philosopher Mary Anne Warren clearly recognizes that her position on abortion cannot rest on this argument without it first being demonstrated that the unborn entity is not fully human. She writes that "the fact that restricting access to abortion has tragic side effects does not, in itself, show that the restrictions are unjustified, since murder is wrong regardless of the consequences of prohibiting it..." [1]

Although it is doubtful whether statistics can establish a particular moral position, it should be pointed out that there has been considerable debate over both the actual number of illegal abortions and the number of women who died as a result of them prior to legalization. [2] Prior to Roe, pro-choicers were fond of saying that nearly a million women every year obtained illegal abortions performed with rusty coat hangers in back-alleys that resulted in thousands of fatalities. Given the gravity of the issue at hand, it would go beyond the duty of kindness to call such claims an exaggeration, because several well-attested facts establish that the pro-choice movement was simply lying.

First, Dr. Bernard Nathanson -- who was one of the original leaders of the American pro-abortion movement and co-founder of N.A.R.A.L. (National Abortion Rights Action League), and who has since become pro-life -- admits that he and others in the abortion rights movement intentionally fabricated the number of women who allegedly died as a result of illegal abortions.

How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal? In N.A.R.A.L. we generally emphasized the drama of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always "5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year." I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the "morality" of the revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics. The overriding concern was to get the laws eliminated, and anything within reason which had to be done was permissible. [3]

Second, Dr. Nathanson's observation is borne out in the best official statistical studies available. According to the U.S. Bureau of Vital Statistics, there were a mere 39 women who died from illegal abortions in 1972, the year before Roe v. Wade. [4] Dr. Andre Hellegers, the late Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Georgetown University Hospital, pointed out that there has been a steady decrease of abortion-related deaths since 1942. That year there were 1,231 deaths. Due to improved medical care and the use of penicillin, this number fell to 133 by 1968. [5] The year before the first state-legalized abortion, 1966, there were about 120 abortion-related deaths. [6]

This is not to minimize the undeniable fact that such deaths were significant losses to the families and loved ones of those who died. But one must be willing to admit the equally undeniable fact that if the unborn are fully human, these abortion-related maternal deaths pale in comparison to the 1.4 million preborn humans who die (on the average) every year. And even if we grant that there were more abortion-related deaths than the low number confirmed, there is no doubt that the 5,000 to 10,000 deaths cited by the abortion rights movement is a gross exaggeration. [7]

Third, it is simply false to claim that there were nearly a million illegal abortions per year prior to legalization. There is no reliable statistical support for this claim. [8] In addition, a highly sophisticated recent study has concluded that "a reasonable estimate for the actual number of criminal abortions per year in the prelegalization era [prior to 1967] would be from a low of 39,000 (1950) to a high of 210,000 (1961) and a mean of 98,000 per year. [9]

Fourth, it is misleading to say that pre-Roe illegal abortions were performed by "back-alley butchers" with rusty coat hangers. While president of Planned Parenthood, Dr. Mary Calderone pointed out in a 1960 American Journal of Health article that Dr. Kinsey showed in 1958 that 84% to 87% of all illegal abortions were performed by licensed physicians in good standing. Dr. Calderone herself concluded that "90% of all illegal abortions are presently done by physicians." [10] It seems that the vast majority of the alleged "back-alley butchers" eventually became the "reproductive health providers" of our present day.

Is There a "Gay Gene"?

Many laymen now believe that homosexuality is part of who a person really is from the moment of conception.

The "genetic and unchangeable" theory has been actively promoted by gay activists and the popular media. Is homosexuality really an inborn and normal variant of human nature?

No. There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is simply "genetic." And none of the research claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.

How The Public Was Misled

In July of 1993, the prestigious research journal Science published a study by Dean Hamer which claims that there might be a gene for homosexuality. Research seemed to be on the verge of proving that homosexuality is innate, genetic and therefore unchangeablea normal variant of human nature.

Soon afterward, National Public Radio trumpeted those findings. Newsweek ran the cover story, "Gay Gene?" The Wall Street Journal announced, "Research Points Toward a Gay Gene...Normal Variation."

Of course, certain necessary qualifiers were added within those news stories. But only an expert knew what those qualifiers meant. The vast majority of readers were urged to believe that homosexuals had been proven to be "born that way."

In order to grasp what is really going on, one needs to understand some littleknown facts about behavioral genetics.

Gene Linkage Studies

Dean Hamer and his colleagues had performed a common type of behavioral genetics investigation called the "linkage study." Researchers identify a behavioral trait that runs in a family, and then:

a) look for a chromosomal variant in the genetic material of that family, and

b) determine whether that variant is more frequent in family members who share the particular trait.

To the layman, the "correlation" of a genetic structure with a behavioral trait means that trait "is genetic"-in other words, inherited.

In fact, it means absolutely nothing of the sort, and it should be emphasized that there is virtually no human trait without innumerable such correlations.

Scientists Know the Truth about "Gay Gene" Research

But before we consider the specifics, here is what serious scientists think about recent genetics-of-behavior research. From Science, 1994:

Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated. "Unfortunately," says Yale's [Dr. Joel] Gelernter, "it's hard to come up with many" findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated. "...All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute."{1}

Homosexual Twin Studies

Two American activists recently published studies showing that if one of a pair of identical twins is homosexual, the other member of the pair will be, too, in just under 50% of the cases. On this basis, they claim that "homosexuality is genetic."

But two other genetic researchers--one heads one of the largest genetics departments in the country, the other is at Harvard--comment:

While the authors interpreted their findings as evidence for a genetic basis for homosexuality, we think that the data in fact provide strong evidence for the influence of the environment.{2}

The author of the lead article on genes and behavior in a special issue of Science speaks of the renewed scientific recognition of the importance of environment. He notes the growing understanding that:

... the interaction of genes and environment is much more complicated than the simple "violence genes" and intelligence genes" touted in the popular press.The same data that show the effects of genes, also point to the enormous influence of nongenetic factors.{3}

More Modest Claims to the Scientific Community

Researchers' public statements to the press are often grand and far-reaching. But when answering the scientific community, they speak much more cautiously.

"Gay gene" researcher Dean Hamer was asked by Scientific American if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology. He replied:

"Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors...not negate the psychosocial factors."{4}

But in qualifying their findings, researchers often use language that will surely evade general understanding making statements that will continue to be avoided by the popular press, such as:

...the question of the appropriate significance level to apply to a nonMendelian trait such as sexual orientation is problematic.{5}

Sounds too complex to bother translating? This is actually a very important statement. In layman's terms, this means:

It is not possible to know what the findings mean--if anything--since sexual orientation cannot possibly be inherited in the direct way eyecolor is.

Thus, to their fellow scientists, the researchers have been honestly acknowledging the limitations of their research. However, the media doesn't understand that message. Columnist Ann Landers, for example, tells her readers that "homosexuals are born, not made." The media offers partial truths because the scientific reality is simply too unexciting to make the evening news; too complex for mass consumption; and furthermore, not fully and accurately understood by reporters.

Accurate Reporting Will Never Come in "Sound Bites"

There are no "lite," soundbite versions of behavioral genetics that are not fundamentally in error in one way or another.

Nonetheless, if one grasps at least some of the basics, in simple form, it will be possible to see exactly why the current research into homosexuality means so littleand will continue to mean little, even should the quality of the research methods improveso long as it remains driven by political, rather than scientific objectives.

Understanding the Theory

There are only two major principles that need to be carefully understood in order to see through the distortions of the recent research. They are as follows:

1. Heritable does not mean inherited.

2. Genetics research which is truly meaningful will identify, and then focus on, only traits that are directly inherited.

Almost every human characteristic is in significant measure heritable. But few human behavioral traits are directly inherited, in the manner of height, for example, or eye color. Inherited means "directly determined by genes," with little or no way of preventing or modifying the trait through a change in the environment.

How to "Prove" That Basketball-Players are Born that Way

Suppose you are motivated to demonstratefor political reasons--that there is a basketball gene that makes people grow up to be basketball players. You would use the same methods that have been used with homosexuality: (1) twin studies; (2) brain dissections; (3) gene "linkage" studies.

The basic idea in twin studies is to show that the more genetically similar two people are, the more likely it is that they will share the trait you are studying.

So you identify groups of twins in which at least one is a basketball player. You will probably find that if one identical twin is a basketball player, his twin brother is statistically more likely be one, too. You would need to create groups of different kinds of pairs to make further comparisons--one set of identical twin pairs, one set of nonidentical twin pairs, one set of sibling pairs, etc.

Using the "concordance rate" (the percentage of pairs in which both twins are basketball players, or both are not), you would calculate a "heritability" rate. The concordance rate would be quite high--just as in the concordance rate for homosexuality.

Then, you announce to the reporter from Sports Illustrated: "Our research demonstrates that basketball playing is strongly heritable." (And you would be right. It would be "heritable"--but not directly inherited. Few readers would be aware of the distinction, however.)

Soon after, the article appears. It says:

"...New research shows that basketball playing is probably inherited. Basketball players are apparently 'born that way!' A number of outside researchers examined the work and found it substantially accurate and wellperformed..."

But no one (other than the serious scientist) notices the media's inaccurate reporting.

What All Neuroscientists Know:
The Brain Changes with Use

Then you move on to conduct some brain research. As in the well-known LeVay brain study which measured parts of the hypothalamus, your colleagues perform a series of autopsies on the brains of some dead people who, they have reason to believe, were basketball players.

Next, they do the same with a group of dead nonbasketball players. Your colleagues report that, on average, "Certain parts of the brain long thought to be involved with basketball playing are much larger in the group of basketball players."

A few national newspapers pick up on the story and editorialize, "Clearly, basketball playing is not a choice. Not only does basketball playing run in families, but even these people's brains are different."

You, of course, as a scientist, are well aware that the brain changes with use...indeed quite dramatically. Those parts responsible for an activity get larger over time, and there are specific parts of the brain that are more utilized in basketball playing.

Now, as a scientist, you will not lie about this fact, if asked (since you will not be), but neither will you go out of your way to offer the truth. The truth, after all, would put an end to the worldwide media blitz accompanying the announcement of your findings.

Gene Linkage Studies:
"Associated With" Does Not Mean "Caused By"

Now, for the last phase, you find a small number of families of basketball players and compare them to some families of nonplayers. You have a hunch that of the innumerable genes likely to be associated with basketball playing (those for height, athleticism, and quick reflexes, for example), some will be located on the x-chromosome.

You won't say these genes cause basketball playing because such a claim would be scientifically insupportable, but the public thinks "caused by" and "associated with" are synonymous.

After a few false starts, sure enough, you find what you are looking for: among the basketball-playing families, one particular cluster of genes is found more commonly.

With a Little Help from the Media

Now, it happens that you have some sympathizers at National People's Radio, and they were long ago quietly informed of your research. They want people to come around to certain beliefs, too. So, as soon as your work hits the press, they are on the air: "Researchers are hot on the trail of the Basketball Gene. In an article to be published tomorrow in Sports Science..."

Commentators pontificate about the enormous public-policy implications of this superb piece of science. Two weeks later, there it is again, on the cover of the major national newsweekly: "Basketball Gene?"

Now what is wrong with this scenario? It is simple: of course basketball playing is associated with certain genes; of course it is heritable. But it is those intermediate physiological traitsmuscle strength, speed, agility, reflex speed, height, etc.-which are themselves directly inherited. Those are the traits that make it likely one will be able to, and will want to, play basketball.

In the case of homosexuality, the inherited traits that are more common among male homosexuals might include a greater than average tendency to anxiety, shyness, sensitivity, intelligence, and aesthetic abilities. But this is speculation. To date, researchers have not yet sought to identify these factors with scientific rigor.

What the majority of respected scientists now believe is that homosexuality is attributable to a combination of psychological, social, and biological factors.

From the American Psychological Association "[M]any scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors."{6}

From "Gay Brain" Researcher Simon LeVay "At this point, the most widely held opinion [on causation of homosexuality] is that multiple factors play a role."{7}

From Dennis McFadden, University of Texas neuroscientist: "Any human behavior is going to be the result of complex intermingling of genetics and environment. It would be astonishing if it were not true for homosexuality."{8}

From Sociologist Steven Goldberg "I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors."{9}

As we have seen, there is no evidence that homosexuality is simply "genetic"--and none of the research itself claims there is.

Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.

Endnotes

{1} Mann, C. Genes and behavior. Science 264:1687 (1994).

{2} Billings, P. and Beckwith, J. Technology Review, July, 1993. p. 60.

{3} Mann, C. op. cit. pp. 1686-1689.

{4} "Gay Genes, Revisited: Doubts arise over research on the biology of homosexuality," Scientific American, November 1995, P. 26.

{5} Hamer, D. H., et al. Response to Risch, N., et al., "Male Sexual Orientation and Genetic Evidence," Science 262 (1993), pp. 2063-65.

{6} The American Psychological Association's pamphlet, "Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality."

{7} LeVay, Simon (1996). Queer Science, MIT Press.

{8} "Scientists Challenge Notion that Homosexuality's a Matter of Choice," The Charlotte Observer, August 9, 1998.

{9} Goldberg, Steven (1994). When Wish Replaces Thought: Why So Much of What You Believe is False. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books.

The above article was adapted from two sources: a paper entitled, "The Gay Gene?" by Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., in The Journal of Human Sexuality, 1996, available by calling (972) 713-7130; and past issues of the National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) Bulletin. For an in-depth discussion of homosexuality and genetics, consult Dr. Satinover's 1996 book, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, published by Hamewith/Baker Books.

Updated: 30 September 2002

Lies About Fetal Stem Cell Research

SLANTING THE SCIENCE

By WESLEY J. SMITH

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 22, 2001 -- SHOULD the government fund medical research that relies on the use of "stem cells" extracted from human embryos? This difficult moral decision would be a lot easier if the media weren't failing to tell the public the whole story.

Embryo-stem-cell research promises to produce medical miracles in a host of areas. But other research avenues - including the use of cells that don't come from human embryos - are also promising, perhaps more so. Unfortunately, journalists and editors haven't reported this news fully or fairly.

The Statistical Assessment Service (STATS), a non-partisan research organization devoted to the accurate use of scientific research in public-policy debates, has documented how journalists have fallen down on the job on this issue.

In its recent report "Stemming the News Flow?" STATS decried a "striking" selectivity in coverage: The media often play up embryonic-stem-cell breakthroughs while giving short shrift to equivalent (or even more promising) adult-stem-cell successes.

* In separate experiments, scientists researched the ability of embryonic and adult mouse pancreatic stem cells to regenerate the body's ability to make insulin. Both types of cells boosted insulin production in diabetic mice. The embryonic success made a big splash with prominent coverage in all major media outlets. Yet the same media organs were strangely silent about the research involving adult cells.

Stranger still, the adult-cell experiment was far more successful - it raised insulin levels much more. Indeed, those diabetic mice lived, while the mice treated with embryonic cells all died. Why did the media celebrate the less successful experiment and ignore the more successful one?

* Another barely reported story is that alternative-source stem cells are already healing human illnesses.

*In Los Angeles, the transplantation of stem cells harvested from umbilical-cord blood has saved the lives of three young boys born with defective immune systems.

*Rather than receiving bone marrow transplants, the three boys underwent stem cell therapy. The experimental procedure worked. Two years post-surgery, their doctors at UCLA Medical Center pronounced the boys cured.

*Last year, Israeli scientists implanted Melissa Holley's white blood cells into her spinal cord to treat the paraplegia caused when her spinal cord was severed in an auto accident. Melissa, who is 18, has since regained control over her bladder and recovered significant motor function in her limbs - she can now move her legs and toes, although she cannot yet walk.

This is exactly the kind of therapy that embryonic-stem-cell proponents promise - years down the road. Yet Melissa's breakthrough was met with collective yawns in the press with the exception of Canada's The Globe and Mail.

Non-embryonic stem cells may be as common as beach sand.

They have been successfully extracted from umbilical cord blood, placentas, fat, cadaver brains, bone marrow, and tissues of the spleen, pancreas, and other organs. Even more astounding, the scientists who cloned Dolly the sheep successfully created cow heart tissue using stem cells from cow skin. And just this week, Singapore scientists announced that they have transformed bone-marrow cells into heart muscle.

Research with these cells also has a distinct moral advantage: It doesn't require the destruction of a human embryo. You don't have to be pro-life to be more comfortable with that.

So why does the more ethically problematic research get such better press? Well, it sure looks like bias, conscious or not: Most reporters and editors call themselves pro-choice on abortion. And many see support of embryonic-stem-cell research as consistent with (or even supportive of) this point of view.

But abortion is actually quite beside the point in this debate - there is no pregnant woman being asked to gestate a child she does not want. Thus, one can both support abortion rights and oppose embryonic research without any inconsistency.

In the end, this debate turns on two questions. The tougher one is: Is such research immoral, since it destroys human life and transforms it into a mere commodity? The second: Can we reap equivalent medical benefits using alternative sources?

The answer to that seems to be "yes." If the press were doing its job, giving an honest answer to the "hard" question would be far less painful.

Attorney and consumer advocate Wesley J. Smith is the author of "Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America."

ABORTED FOETAL TISSUE USELESS AND DANGEROUS AS PARKINSONS TREATMENT

Second Aborted Foetal Tissue Study Shows 'Treatment' Causes Patients Severe Damage

NEW YORK, December 3, 2002 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In what is being described as the death knell for the use of aborted baby tissue in Parkinson's treatment, a second study has had catastrophic results debilitating permanently many of the human subjects involved. A recent study conducted by Warren Olanow, a neuroscientist at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York found that of the 23 Parkinson's patients who received transplants of aborted foetal tissue, 13 developed severe uncontrollable movements.

While the results of the study are only to be published in a medical journal early next year, the news has spread quickly among the scientific community which was eagerly awaiting the results of this study which many had hoped would refute similar findings from a previous study. A study published in the March 2001 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine showed that the treatment had "disastrous side effects." The results have prompted researchers including Dr. Paul Greene, a neurologist at the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, to back out of work in the area. "No more foetal transplants. We are absolutely and adamantly convinced that this should be considered for research only. And whether it should be researched in people is an open question," said Greene.

In 15 per cent of the patients who underwent an embryonic stem cell treatment, the cells began producing too much dopamine, causing patients to "chew constantly" and "writhe and twist, jerk their heads, fling their arms about." Greene remarked that the results are "absolutely devastating ... It was tragic, catastrophic. It's a real nightmare. And we can't selectively turn it off," he said.

The Wall Street Journal indicates that the news will come as a major disappointment to groups which have put millions of dollars into funding the controversial treatment such as the Michael J. Fox foundation. However, even formerly strong proponents of the treatment are admitting it is time to quit. "This is a surprising result that forces reconsideration of transplantation without a great deal more research," said Anthony Lang, a Parkinson's expert at Toronto Western Hospital in Canada. (Wall Street Journal, Dec. 3, 2002)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.