Connect with us

Opinion: Editor Of Anti-Gay Regnerus Study A Menace To LGBT Families And Community

Published

on

James Wright is editor of the Elsevier journal Social Science Research. Because Wright allowed Mark Regnerus‘s booby-trapped anti-gay study with NOM-linked funding to be published through a corrupt process in violation of science publishing ethics, many leading scholars are calling for James Wright to be fired from Social Science Research.

It is true; given what Wright enabled with his illicit publication of the Regnerus study alone, he undermined the trust on which science is based.

And, Wright and Elsevier have sent a clear message to anti-scientific, radical anti-gay-rights factions, that they are for sale, and that it is possible to get pseudoscience that has been booby-trapped against LGBTers published through Wright with Elsevier.

WHY ELSEVIER AND WRIGHT ARE SUCH SERIOUS MENACES TO THE COMMUNITY

What makes Elsevier and James Wright such serious menaces to the LGBT community, is that Elsevier has assigned James Wright to be editor-in-chief of The International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2nd Edition.

If trust does not begin getting restored right now, if Elsevier refuses to commit to upholding at least bare minimum standards of science publishing ethics, then when that 2nd edition of the Elsevier Encyclopedia appears, it could very likely be stuffed absolutely full to bursting with hoax studies commissioned by anti-gay-rights organizations that know that with James Wright driving the Elsevier bus, profits are in the front seat and the bus is running clear over science publishing ethics, smashing science publishing ethics to smithereens.

We must keep in mind that National Organization for Marriage strategy documents released only through court order described plans for an “Expert Witness Project.”

Imagine how empowered NOM feels right now, having, so far, successfully pulled off the Regnerus hoax, and knowing that Elsevier and Wright are thrilled with how the hoax upped the Social Science Research journal’s “impact factor.”

It is essential to remember that NOM’s recent political losses in the United States have made its bigot leaders more determined than ever to spread ignorance-and-lies-based anti-gay hatred around the world, including to countries that promote murdering people only because they are gay.  We must take a firm and unwavering stand against Elsevier and James Wright giving an unwarranted imprimatur of scientific respectability to anti-gay hatred and lies.

We have a worldwide human rights duty of conscience to stop James Wright and Elsevier from profiting from unseemly hate speech in the false disguise of a “study.”

Certain scholars not currently active in the drive to get the Regnerus study retracted nonetheless do not mince their words when speaking about it. For example, Dr. Judith Stacey says this: “I certainly agree that the review process at the journal was seriously flawed and that the article should not have been published.”

Wright’s violations of science publishing ethics are already copiously documented.

WRIGHT AND ELSEVIER ARE KNOWINGLY ABETTING REGNERUS IN HIS LYING TO THE PUBLIC

One very serious infraction will serve here as an example of what makes Elsevier and James Wright so dangerous to the community.

Regnerus was funded chiefly by the NOM-linked Witherspoon Institute.

In 2010, a study supposedly to be on gay parenting was organized by the Director of the Witherspoon Project for Marriage, Family and Democracy, W. Bradford Wilcox.

Wilcox recruited Regnerus to do the study. Witherspoon gave Regnerus a $55,000 planning grant. Wilcox and Regnerus then collaborated on the study design. Subsequently, Witherspoon approved the study design and arranged for Regnerus to have his full $785,000 in study funding.

Wilcox was extensively involved in the remainder of Regnerus’s study, and, he is on the editorial board of the journal that published Regnerus, Elsevier’s Social Science Research. Yet, no further details of Wilccox’s involvement in the study are necessary to making the present point.

In his published study, and then again in his more recent Additional Analyses, Regnerus makes the false claim that no study funding agency representatives were involved in his study design or in otherwise conducting his study.

Wright, Regnerus and Wilcox did not disclose Wilcox’s multiple conflicts of interest of their own free wills. Rather, investigations unearthed the documentation that Wright had published a lie from Regnerus involving Wright’s editorial board member Wilcox.

Moreover, Wilcox’s conflicts of interest with Regnerus’s funders do not stop with The Witherspoon Institute. Regnerus received $90,000 for the study from The Bradley Foundation, which contributes money to The Ridge Foundation, whose chief officer is Brad Wilcox. (On page 3 at this link, you may see the Bradley Foundation’s $20,000 grant to Wilcox’s Ridge Foundation).

In response to being exposed in these ways, Wilcox is attempting to deny his connection to the funders by saying that his title of Director of Witherspoon’s Program for Marriage, Family and Democracy was “honorific.”

That is fooling exactly nobody.

Sociologist Philip Cohen says this: “I find this description not credible. I do not think any reasonable auditor or ethical agency would subscribe to the idea that the “director” of an organization was not an “officer” of it.”

Sociologist Dr. Lori Hollyfield says this:

“For Wilcox to use the word “honorific” about his position of Witherspoon Program Director, and Regnerus study design collaborator, is a veiled attempt to turn back the clock. But the damage is done, and the credibility of this study is absolutely, indisputably undone. That Wilcox was a study designer, and that was not disclosed, is alone enough to justify retraction. The further possibility that he was a peer reviewer just adds weight to the case for retraction.”

“It is especially unacceptable that the conflict of interests were hidden, and that there is an ongoing attempt to deceive the public about them.  It adds insult to that injury, that what was produced was a methodologically invalid study that perpetuates negative social stereotypes. This is a very malevolent situation; something must be done about it.” (Bolding added).

Elsevier officials and James Wright have been shown the documentation that Wilcox was a Witherspoon Program Director and that in that capacity, he recruited Regnerus to do Witherspoon’s study on gay parents, and then collaborated with Regnerus on the study design before Witherspoon approved Regnerus for full study funding.

Instead of correcting Regnerus’s lie, Elsevier and James Wright knowingly repeated the lie in publication.

Witherspoon, caught out lying on its stand-alone website for the Regnerus study, scrubbed incriminating evidence from their site, though we already had screenshots of that incriminating evidence.

People sponsoring, carrying out and publishing honest work do not have to lie in these ways.

In telling the public the lie that Regnerus’s funders were not involved in designing or conducting his study, Witherspoon and Regnerus are deliberately attempting to mislead the public into believing that Regnerus carried out his study independently of his funders and their anti-gay-rights political goals for the study.

Yet, Elsevier and James Wright have upon their shoulders an even heavier weight of accountability for disseminating that lie to the public, as they, not Regnerus, make the decisions of whether to publish.

With their planned, upcoming 2nd edition of Elsevier’s International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Elsevier and James Wright are capable of foisting any number of booby-trapped anti-LGBT “studies” off into the world.

Both Elsevier and James Wright must be counted as very serious menaces.

Sir William Timothy Gowers, British mathematician, is a Royal Society Research Professor at the Department of Pure Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics at Cambridge University. He is the leader of a boycott against Elsevier. Gowers has said:  “a piece of blatant anti-gay propaganda has been published in the otherwise respectable journal Social Science Research. The research was, it appears, indirectly funded by anti-gay campaigners and is now being gleefully used to help Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign. The refereeing process seems to have been accelerated as well. Most importantly, the paper is bunkum and shouldn’t have been accepted: its conclusion (that children do worse if they have gay parents) is not remotely justified by the data used. So who publishes the journal Social Science Research and is not interested in investigating whether proper academic standards have been upheld? I surely don’t need to spell it out.” (Bolding added).

It is far past time for Elsevier to start behaving responsibly and to restore the trust that was shattered with the corrupted publication of the Regnerus submission. The Regnerus study must be retracted from publication, and James Wright must be fired from Elsevier, if the trust on which science is based is to begin to be restored.



New York City-based novelist and freelance writer Scott Rose’s LGBT-interest by-line has appeared on Advocate.com, PoliticusUSA.com, The New York Blade, Queerty.com, Girlfriends and in numerous additional venues. Among his other interests are the arts, boating and yachting, wine and food, travel, poker and dogs. His “Mr. David Cooper’s Happy Suicide” is about a New York City advertising executive assigned to a condom account.


				
				
																											

													
													
													
													

																												

															Related Topics:
														

														

																													

																													

																																															

																																										

															
															
														

													

												

												

																											

															Continue Reading
														

																										
																										
																																																									

																Click to comment
															

															


																																								
													
													
 
			
				
				

				
				
				

				

				
			
				
													
													
													
 
			
				
          
				
				
				
          
				
				
				


					
Enjoy this piece?


					
… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.


					
NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.


					
Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.


					


					


					

					


					

					

					

					

					


					


					


				

				
				
													
													
																											
																										
												

											

										

									

								

						
						

								

									
News
Dr Oz: Americans Must ‘Earn the Right’ to Be on Medicaid
Published
 9 hours ago 
on
 June 17, 2025
By
  
Dr. Mehmet Oz, Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, is promoting President Donald Trump’s sweeping and highly controversial budget legislation by claiming it will guarantee access to the social safety net for the “right” people. He argues that, under the GOP plan, individuals will need to “earn” the right to use Medicaid—suggesting that many current recipients are capable of working but choose not to.
Almost half (47.9%) of Medicaid users under 65 are children aged 0 to 18, according to KFF, the well-known nonpartisan health policy organization. Six in ten families accessing Medicaid have at least one family member who works full time.
In a nationalistic plea, Dr. Oz, on Tuesday, standing with Senate Republicans, told people using the service to “demonstrate that you are trying your hardest to help this country be greater, by at least trying to fill some of the jobs that we have open.”
READ MORE: ‘Unconditional Surrender’: Trump’s Iran Posts Trigger Fears U.S. Is Entering the War
America has a near-historically low unemployment rate of 4.2%.
“By doing that, you earn the right to be on Medicaid,” Oz added.
Dr. Oz also praised the Republicans’ legislation that would gut at least $800 billion from Medicaid, saying it is “the most ambitious health reform bill ever” and will “curb the growth of Medicaid.”
During his confirmation hearing, Dr. Oz said, “I think it is our patriotic duty to be healthy.”
Earlier this month, Dr. Oz faced widespread criticism for telling Medicaid users, “Go out there, do the entry-level jobs, get into the workforce. Prove that you matter, get agency into your own life.”
His statements suggest a possible lack of awareness of the statistics and circumstances affecting the very people he was nominated to serve.
On June 5, Dr. Oz told those who are not willing to go back to work, volunteer, or take care of a loved one, that “we are going to ask you to do something else. Go on the exchange, or get a job and get onto regular commercial insurance. But we are not going to continue to pay for Medicaid for those audiences.”
Nearly half of employers—about 46%—do not offer health insurance at all. Most exclude part-time workers from coverage. Gig workers typically receive no health benefits through their jobs. And many seasonal workers struggle to meet the monthly hour thresholds needed to remain eligible for Medicaid.
READ MORE: Tapper Tells Ex-Viewer Trump’s Behavior Is More About ‘Personality’ Than Cognitive Decline
Under the current bill, an estimated 10.9 million more people will become uninsured, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
Once again, critics are blasting Dr. Oz.
“Just want to point out, Dr. Oz has a networth of $200+ million and he is telling a single person who makes a maximum of $21,597 they don’t deserve healthcare,” noted Monique Stanton, President and CEO of Michigan League for Public Policy.
Watch the video below or at this link.
READ MORE: ‘Stephen Miller Gets His Way’: Trump Slammed for Farm Workers Flip-Flop
 
Image via Reuters
Continue Reading
News
‘Unconditional Surrender’: Trump’s Iran Posts Trigger Fears U.S. Is Entering the War
Published
 12 hours ago 
on
 June 17, 2025
By
  
President Donald Trump’s latest social media posts have many wondering if the United States is entering the war against Iran, and if so, what is his strategy?
At 11:55 AM, Trump posted to Truth Social, “We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran. Iran had good sky trackers and other defensive equipment, and plenty of it, but it doesn’t compare to American made, conceived, and manufactured ‘stuff.’ Nobody does it better than the good ol’ USA.”
Minutes later, at 12:19 PM, he added, “We know exactly where the so-called ‘Supreme Leader’ is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there – We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now. But we don’t want missiles shot at civilians, or American soldiers. Our patience is wearing thin. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”
And then, at 12:22 PM, he demanded, “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!”
READ MORE: Tapper Tells Ex-Viewer Trump’s Behavior Is More About ‘Personality’ Than Cognitive Decline
To that last post, political scientist Ian Bremmer responded, “Hard to pull back from this.”
Barbara Starr, the longtime, now former CNN national security reporter, responded to Trump’s posts:
“Sometimes you want ambiguity some officials might say. But when it comes to nukes, clarity is vital to avoid catastrophic miscalculation. So there is no other conclusion…Trump is deep into a Middle East war. Just my opinion of course.”
Pointing to Trump’s social media posts, attorney George Conway, a top Trump critic, wrote: “Remember this moment. @realDonaldTrump is reveling in the narcisisstic [sic] and sadistic thrill of threatening others with violent death. He will start to crave that feeling.”
The Bulwark’s Sam Stein, also pointing to Trump’s posts, observed, “Just tweeting through the launch of another Middle East war. Treating the potential bombing of Iran by the U.S. as an episode of reality TV.”
Former Obama National Security Council staffer Tommy Vietor said of Trump’s posts, “The President of the United States can’t say s— like this and then pretend we are not an active participant in this war.”
Trump convened a meeting with his National Security Council (NSC), slated for 1 PM in the Situation Room. Notably, Vice President JD Vance, who ran defense hours earlier for Trump over the possibility of entering the war, was reportedly not in attendance.
“U.S. officials said Trump is seriously considering joining the war and launching a U.S. strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities, especially its underground uranium enrichment facility in Fordow,” Axios reported.
Former Obama chief campaign strategist and Senior Advisor to the President, David Axelrod, laid out the scene:
“Amazing that in a matter of days we’ve gone from ‘this is not our operation’ to ‘we own the skies over Iran.’ With these proclamations, we also now ‘own’ what WAS an Israeli assault. We’re thoroughly in it now. What is the strategy here?”
READ MORE: ‘Stephen Miller Gets His Way’: Trump Slammed for Farm Workers Flip-Flop
CNN reports that “President Donald Trump is growing increasingly warm to using US military assets to strike Iranian nuclear facilities and souring on the idea of a diplomatic solution to end Tehran’s escalating conflict with Israel, two officials familiar with the ongoing discussions told CNN.”
U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren noted that Congress, not the President, has the authority to declare war:
“Allowing Netanyahu to drag us into another endless war in the Middle East would be a catastrophic error by President Trump and Republicans in Congress. Every lawmaker needs to ring the alarm against U.S. military action in Iran. Only Congress has the authority to declare war.”
Many, including BBC Verify senior journalist Shayan Sardarizadeh, are pointing to Trump’s use of the word “we” in his posts. Military.com’s Pentagon reporter Konstantin Toropin suggested it would be difficult to not see the U.S. as involved.
“President Trump is using the term ‘we’ when referring to Israeli attacks on Iran, including a potential strike on the supreme leader, and calling for ‘unconditional surrender,” Sardarizadeh wrote.
“…and yet the US is not a participant in this conflict?” posited Toropin.
Pointing to polling that shows 60% of Americans oppose U.S. military becoming involved in the Israel-Iran war, former U.S. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul wrote: “If Trump is serious about bombing Iran, he’d be wise to declassify intelligence showing that the threat of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is imminent. The American people are not just going to take him at his word. Been there; done that (in 2003).”
Former Clinton Cabinet Secretary Robert Reich noted, “For Trump, a military conflict with Iran would distract from:
-Sinking poll numbers
-A devastating (and unpopular) budget bill
-Harmful trade wars
-Unleashing the military on American soil
-Millions of people protesting his authoritarianism
We must remain on high alert.”
U.S. Senator Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) wrote: “Having seen some of the worst fighting of the Iraq War, I know the devastating toll of rushing into a conflict. I came back from Iraq angry at our government for sending us out to an illegal war. We must learn from our mistakes: no president should unilaterally deploy troops to the Middle East. Congress, not the President, has the sole power to declare war.
READ MORE: ‘Buffoonery’: New Senate GOP Budget Slashes Medicaid Even Deeper Than House Bill
Continue Reading
News
Tapper Tells Ex-Viewer Trump’s Behavior Is More About ‘Personality’ Than Cognitive Decline
Published
 14 hours ago 
on
 June 17, 2025
By
  
A former viewer of Jake Tapper’s CNN program, expressing deep disappointment, publicly criticized the veteran journalist for publishing a book that portrays President Joe Biden in an unflattering light and alleges cognitive decline. The viewer argued that Tapper should instead be scrutinizing what she described as the “erratic” behavior of President Donald Trump. Tapper defended his stance, attributing Trump’s behavior more to “personality” traits than to “cognitive decline.”
On a C-SPAN call-in show (video below), the viewer, identified by the name “Sarah,” told Tapper, “right now, I really don’t like you.”
She accused Tapper of doing a “disservice” to President Biden, “and also to the American people.”
READ MORE: ‘Stephen Miller Gets His Way’: Trump Slammed for Farm Workers Flip-Flop
“When are you going to examine, you know, what is going on with Trump?” she asked.
“Joe Biden conducted himself for four years, taking care of the United States. He took meetings, he went overseas, he negotiated with other leaders.”
But President Trump, Sarah said, “has been pure chaos, which indicates to me that there is something wrong with him.”
“We will never get a straight answer on his medical examination. What medication he is on,” she charged.
She also accused Tapper of going after President Biden “with a vengeance,” and expressed that she is “very disappointed” in the reporter.
“I enjoyed watching your show, but not anymore,” she added.
The caller urged Tapper to write another book, focused on President Trump, “and how erratic and what he is doing—calling out the National Guard, the Marines and everybody. When has a President ever done that? It is pure erratic.”
Tapper, who sat through the 75-seconds of criticism largely stone-faced, responded by saying that on CNN he does cover President Donald Trump “every day for two hours, every day from 5 to 7 Eastern.”
READ MORE: ‘Buffoonery’: New Senate GOP Budget Slashes Medicaid Even Deeper Than House Bill
He insisted that they “cover all the things you talk about, in terms of the president, the current president’s behavior. We have covered times that he has confused Nancy Pelosi with Nikki Haley.”
But Tapper appeared to disagree with Sarah’s perception that “there is something wrong” with President Trump. Despite his age (79) and reported lifestyle, Tapper insisted, “I think some of the questions about President Trump’s behavior have more to do with personality than with cognitive decline.”
“But obviously,” he continued, “whatever lessons we’ve learned from covering President Biden, we would apply to any politician, any future politician or present politician.”
So I’m sorry, if I’m disappointing you by covering President Biden, but journalists, we are supposed to cover stories that we think the American people have a right to know, that we think will enhance their understanding of how the country’s run, and I think Alex and I are proud of this book.”
Watch the video below or at this link.
RELATED: ‘Spending Like Drunken Sailors’: ICE $1B Over Budget Ahead of New Trump Deportation Surge
Continue Reading
								

							


							

						

													
							

	
	
	

				
				
				
				
				
			

				

				

				
				

				
				
				

	
	
	

				
				
				
				
				
			
				
							
											

				

							

					

						Trending
					

					
				

						

		

		

			

			

				
				

	
	
	

				
				
				
				
			
				
				

					

						

							
Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.