Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The other Lott controversy: Michelle Malkin whacks pro-2nd Amendment author for self-aggrandizing
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Wednesday, February 5, 2003 | Michelle Malkin

Posted on 02/04/2003 11:44:51 PM PST by JohnHuang2

Edited on 02/04/2003 11:45:25 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]

 
 


WND Commentary


The other Lott controversy


Posted: February 5, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

For those few of us in the mainstream media who openly support Second Amendment rights, research scholar John Lott has been – or rather, had been – an absolute godsend.

Armed with top-notch credentials (including stints at Stanford, Rice, UCLA, Wharton, Cornell, the University of Chicago and Yale), Lott took on the entrenched anti-gun bias of the ivory tower with seemingly meticulous scholarship. His best-selling 1998 book, "More Guns, Less Crime," provided analysis of FBI crime data that showed a groundbreaking correlation between concealed-weapons laws and reduced violent crime rates.

I met Lott briefly after a seminar at the University of Washington in Seattle several years ago and was deeply impressed by his intellectual rigor. Lott responded directly and extensively to critics' arguments. He made his data accessible to many other researchers.

But as he prepares to release a new book, "Bias Against Guns," next month, Lott must grapple with an emerging controversy – brought to the public eye by the blogosphere – that goes to the heart of his academic integrity.

The most disturbing charge, first raised by retired University of California, Santa Barbara professor Otis Dudley Duncan and pursued by Australian computer programmer Tim Lambert, is that Lott fabricated a study claiming that 98 percent of defensive gun uses involved mere brandishing, as opposed to shooting.

When Lott cited the statistic peripherally on page three of his book, he attributed it to "national surveys." In the second edition, he changed the citation to "a national survey that I conducted." He has also incorrectly attributed the figure to newspaper polls and Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck.

Last fall, Northwestern University law professor James Lindgren volunteered to investigate the claimed existence of Lott's 1997 telephone survey of 2,424 people. "I thought it would be exceedingly simple to establish" that the research had been done, Lindgren wrote in his report.

It was not simple. Lott claims to have lost all of his data due to a computer crash. He financed the survey himself and kept no financial records. He has forgotten the names of the students who allegedly helped with the survey and who supposedly dialed thousands of survey respondents long-distance from their own dorm rooms using survey software Lott can't identify or produce.

Assuming the survey data was lost in a computer crash, it is still remarkable that Lott could not produce a single, contemporaneous scrap of paper proving the survey's existence, such as the research protocol or survey instrument. After Lindgren's report was published, a Minnesota gun-rights activist named David Gross came forward, claiming he was surveyed in 1997. Some have said that Gross's account proves that the survey was done. I think skepticism is warranted.

Lott now admits he used a fake persona, "Mary Rosh," to post voluminous defenses of his work over the Internet. "Rosh" gushed that Lott was "the best professor that I ever had." She/he also penned an effusive review of "More Guns, Less Crime" on Amazon.com: "It was very interesting reading and Lott writes very well." (Lott claims that one of his sons posted the review in "Rosh's" name.) Just last week, "Rosh" complained on a blog comment board: "Critics such as Lambert and Lindgren ought to slink away and hide."

By itself, there is nothing wrong with using a pseudonym. But Lott's invention of Mary Rosh to praise his own research and blast other scholars is beyond creepy. And it shows his extensive willingness to deceive to protect and promote his work.

Some Second Amendment activists believe there is an anti-gun conspiracy to discredit Lott as "payback" for the fall of Michael Bellesiles, the disgraced former Emory University professor who engaged in rampant research fraud to bolster his anti-gun book, "Arming America." But it wasn't an anti-gun zealot who unmasked Rosh/Lott. It was Internet blogger Julian Sanchez, a staffer at the libertarian Cato Institute, which staunchly defends the Second Amendment. And it was the conservative Washington Times that first reported last week on the survey dispute in the mainstream press.

In an interview Monday, Lott stressed that his new defensive gun-use survey (whose results will be published in the new book) will show similar results to the lost survey. But the existence of the new survey does not lay to rest the still lingering doubts about the old survey's existence.

The media coverage of the 1997 survey data dispute, Lott told me, is "a bunch to do about nothing." I wish I could agree.



TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-50 next last
Wednesday, February 5, 2003

Quote of the Day by EternalVigilance

1 posted on 02/04/2003 11:44:52 PM PST by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Nice to see that we hold ourselves to a higher standard than liberals, and that honesty, integrity, and facts still count, not blind adherence to idealogy.
2 posted on 02/05/2003 12:01:12 AM PST by Godel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
PING
3 posted on 02/05/2003 12:15:37 AM PST by gubamyster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2; dansangel
Keep up the good work on the posts. The truth is out there...
4 posted on 02/05/2003 1:01:12 AM PST by .45MAN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Godel
For some..
5 posted on 02/05/2003 1:04:25 AM PST by chasio649
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Far be if from me to defend Dr. Lott, whose success in broaching the obvious about individual gun ownership needs no plaudit, but I do wish to offer this:

I wrote a book. It was the work of a lifetime. It cost me $400,000 in cash outlay and lost income and virtually ended my professional career. It has been a financial bomb, in large part because I have no money left to promote it. I did everything I knew to get others to review my data and my findings. I have NO IDEA how thorough those individuals were but I have my suspicions that they were blown away by the sheer volume of the data. I live in constant anguish that somewhere I might have made a "too-hopeful" conclusion or stupid error.

I don't have Dr. Lott's credentials. Lacking fame or money means that anyone you would want to review your book, won't. I have had to acquire reviews by sheer force of determination and the whole thing grows stale while they take six months to maybe read it, or tell you they don't have time (after you sent them a free copy). Given that it is an interdisciplinary work, it is almost impossible to get even the most supportive academic to put anything in writing.

I can thus easily understand the massive temptations that operated on John Lott. If he truly blew it, I feel for the guy.

6 posted on 02/05/2003 1:04:50 AM PST by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to be managed by politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
That book of Lott's is probably the most exhaustively investigated ever -- and the gun-grabbers only found one error. If there were more, they would surely have found them by now and he'd be pilloried just like Bellesiles. But he hasn't been.

I call that good news.

7 posted on 02/05/2003 3:21:30 AM PST by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bonaparte
Faking data, if true, is not ok. While I support the position Lott takes concerning the role of guns in our culture, there should be enough data available without making it up. In this he is no better than Bellesailes and it casts doubt on his entire thesis. This is not a good thing for those who must fight the sea of misinformation and faulty assumptions of the gun control crowd.
He should never have done such a thing.
In a larger view, what does it say about the integrity of academia that they are constantly being "caught" faking data, misrepresenting findings and flat out lying? What has happened to integrity? This is the kind of future we can expect? All research will be meaningless and unreliable if it can't be trusted. I don't have any answers but it certainly bodes ill when research is used to make policy and that research is tainted by intellectual dishonesty.
8 posted on 02/05/2003 3:39:36 AM PST by Adder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: .45MAN; JohnHuang2
And I thought this was going to be a good Wednesday....

Silly Me! {{{{{{{JH2}}}}}}

9 posted on 02/05/2003 4:22:50 AM PST by dansangel (May the souls of the Columbia Astronauts rest in peace in the comfort of our Lord's arms.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster
ping
10 posted on 02/05/2003 4:23:31 AM PST by dansangel (May the souls of the Columbia Astronauts rest in peace in the comfort of our Lord's arms.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Adder
"In a larger view, what does it say about the integrity of academia that they are constantly being "caught" faking data, misrepresenting findings and flat out lying? What has happened to integrity? This is the kind of future we can expect? All research will be meaningless and unreliable if it can't be trusted."

The increase in "loss of integrity" is a symptom of the "socialist/liberal" disease in which any lie is OK as long as the perpetrator of the falsehood feels he is doing it "for a good cause". That this propensity spills over from the left into other spheres of philosophy is an unfortunate consequence of the above.

However--in the long run, it doesn't matter, as THE TRUTH "WILL"!!!! COME OUT. The fact that the falsifiers are being investigated and identified on a regular basis actually says that the overall process is working as it should--it just takes a bit longer and a bit more effort than it used to in the "old days" when research integrity was held in higher esteem.

11 posted on 02/05/2003 4:56:52 AM PST by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Adder
there should be enough data available without making it up. In this he is no better than Bellesailes and it casts doubt on his entire thesis.

That will be tue only if a 'real' survey shows a very different / contradictory result form the phantom survey, which I expect is NOT the case.

12 posted on 02/05/2003 4:58:57 AM PST by WL-law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Godel
Nice to see that we hold ourselves to a higher standard than liberals, and that honesty, integrity, and facts still count, not blind adherence to idealogy.

I wish I could totally agree with your statement, but I can't do it.

We have more than our fair share of ideologues on the Right who place ideology above all else.

T-minus 38 days until the birth of Tha SYNDICATE, the philosophical heir to William Lloyd Garrison.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.

13 posted on 02/05/2003 5:04:08 AM PST by rdb3 (The ballad of a menace...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: WL-law
That will be tue only if a 'real' survey shows a very different / contradictory result form the phantom survey, which I expect is NOT the case.

Actually, there have been many other surveys on this point, and they all reached results that contradict Lott. (Those other surveys include some done by Gary Kleck, the preeminent and very pro-gun criminologist at Florida State University.) The discrepancy between those surveys and Lott's survey are the very reason that people started wondering about the legitimacy of Lott's survey in the first place.

14 posted on 02/05/2003 6:28:52 AM PST by choosetheright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
"The increase in "loss of integrity" is a symptom of the "socialist/liberal" disease in which any lie is OK as long as the perpetrator of the falsehood feels he is doing it "for a good cause"."
___________________________________________________________
I agree with that! Yet, even though much of it is being caught, how much is not? How many "scientific studies" are being used to make laws and policies that are simply flawed and outright lies[such as the second hand smoke study from 1993 later discredited but still cited everytime a smoking ban is proposed or the "biologist" caught planting jaguar[?] hair to claim its territory had spread to that section of forest, et al.], One can be vigilant but not perfect. The trust invested in the amphorous "scientific community" is disappearing with each new revelation of misconduct.
15 posted on 02/05/2003 6:46:49 AM PST by Adder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: choosetheright
Actually, there have been many other surveys on this point, and they all reached results that contradict Lott. (Those other surveys include some done by Gary Kleck, the preeminent and very pro-gun criminologist at Florida State University.) The discrepancy between those surveys and Lott's survey are the very reason that people started wondering about the legitimacy of Lott's survey in the first place.

Well then I stand corrected.

I had heard that Lott claimed to have re-tested the hypothesis (with evidence this time)and essentially replicated his results -- so (if that's true) something has to be wrong between Kleck's findings and Lott's -- do you think they are testing the same question?

16 posted on 02/05/2003 6:56:26 AM PST by WL-law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
However--in the long run, it doesn't matter, as THE TRUTH "WILL"!!!! COME OUT. The fact that the falsifiers are being investigated and identified on a regular basis actually says that the overall process is working as it should--it just takes a bit longer and a bit more effort than it used to in the "old days" when research integrity was held in higher esteem.

You know, I wish I shared your optimism. In my current field of environmental politics, I have seen a MASSIVE increase in bogus "science" and no sign that it is abating, indeed there is a building culture around self-justified scientific distortion:

"Gaian perception connects us with the seamless nature of existence, and opens up a new approach to scientific research based on scientific institutions arising from scientists' personal, deeply subjective ecological experience. When the young scientist in training has sat on a mountain top, and has completed her first major assignment to 'think like a mountain', that is, to dwell and deeply identify with a mountain, mechanistic thinking will never take root in her mind. When she eventually goes out to practise her science in the world, she will be fully aware that every interconnected aspect of it has its own intrinsic value, irrespective of its usefulness to the economic activities of human beings."

- STEPHAN HARDING

These monsters are taking over the universities, as you know. They are turning subjectivity into a religion. It is deliberate. Such people are easy to use and wealth can thus be redirected by democratic means. Note how we seem to be moving in the direction of regulating carbon dioxide, notwithstanding the growing scientific indication that anthropogenic warming is miniscule or that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are niether unpredented nor destructive. It's mere political force intended to enrich the politically dominant.

No, I am not so optimistic.

17 posted on 02/05/2003 7:44:14 AM PST by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to be managed by politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Mr. Vande Pol (AKA Carry_Okie) was a leading contributor to the Santa Cruz County Local Agenda 21 Biodiversity and Ecosystem Management Roundtable. His purpose was to see rigorous science respected in policy.

6 posted on 02/05/2003 1:04 AM PST by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to be managed by politics.)

Naive?...Hypocrite? Or both?

18 posted on 02/05/2003 8:24:02 AM PST by lewislynn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
"Gaian perception connects us with the seamless nature of existence, and opens up a new approach to scientific research based on scientific institutions arising from scientists' personal, deeply subjective ecological experience. When the young scientist in training has sat on a mountain top, and has completed her first major assignment to 'think like a mountain', that is, to dwell and deeply identify with a mountain, mechanistic thinking will never take root in her mind. When she eventually goes out to practise her science in the world, she will be fully aware that every interconnected aspect of it has its own intrinsic value, irrespective of its usefulness to the economic activities of human beings."

Another element of this phenomena is gender-based -- namely, that the thinking process championed above is feminine, subjective, intuitive.

Reminded me of my thoughts a few days ago, on hearing a NASA press conference and hearing a high NASA official weeping and talking about his feelings.

I remarked to my wife that if, twenty years ago, a man in a highly responsible mgmt position acted this way in public, we would all judge him mentally ill. Now to blubber in public is a badge of honor, showing you're in touch with your feminine side.

All of that 'emotional justification" over rational thought has begun its inevitable pollution of the sciences -- and that's when we'll really see that all bad ideas have (bad) consequences.

19 posted on 02/05/2003 8:26:26 AM PST by WL-law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: *bang_list
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list
20 posted on 02/05/2003 8:31:04 AM PST by Free the USA (Stooge for the Rich)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-50 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson