Science Panel Coerced Into Including Supporters of Abstinence-Only Sex Ed

Ronald Bailey | May 12, 2006

Conservative politics and science are at loggerheads once again, according to the Seattle Times: Indiana Republican Congressman Mark Souder objected that a scientific panel at the Centers' for Disease Control National STD Prevention Conference did not have advocates for abstinence only education on it. The Seattle Times reports:

Researchers organizing a federal panel on sexually transmitted disease say an agency allowed a conservative congressman to include two abstinence-only proponents, bypassing the scientific-approval process.

Indiana Rep. Mark Souder, a Republican who chairs the House subcommittee on drug policy, questioned the balance of the original panel, which focused on the failure of abstinence-until-marriage programs.

In an e-mail to Health and Human Services officials, his office asked if the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) was "clear about the controversial nature of this session and its obvious anti-abstinence objective?"

So the CDC duly rolled over and invited two abstinence-only advocates to participate and the Feds even paid their way while other panelists had to cover their own expenses.

The Seattle Times quotes William Smith, director for public policy for the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S. as asking, "We've spent $1.2 billion over a 25-year period on abstinence-only programs. Shouldn't we have one study that shows that they work?"

That's a very good question.

Whole thing here.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

Timothy|5.12.06 @ 11:51AM|#

I'm so sick of this crap. Science is now political at the CDC. Between this and the RU486 "controversy" over a bacterial infection that doesn't even seem to be related to the pill (as other women, and men have gotten it too)...gah.

I say we replace Congress with the first 4 names from each section of the phonebook except "C".

Jeff P|5.12.06 @ 11:56AM|#

I see the priest from the Brain Room sequence in Woody Allen's Everything You Wanted to Know About Sex.
"Blasphemy! Blasphemy!"

|5.12.06 @ 12:05PM|#

"We've spent $1.2 billion over a 25-year period on abstinence-only programs. Shouldn't we have one study that shows that they work?"

This stupidity doesn't surprise me since it comes from the bunch who says that the make reality whatever they want it to be. Now, we know how: Throw money at it.

|5.12.06 @ 12:12PM|#

Coersion, not having data and not wanting data is nothing new for the crusaders. This seems to be handled much like the DARE program. They'll never let go of their banana.

Dave W.|5.12.06 @ 12:28PM|#

Figuring out how to reduce risky sex doesn't strike me as a particularly scientific question.

The problem with abstinence is that people will disobey sometimes and have sex anyway. The problem with condoms and handjobs is that people disobey and end up having more pleasurable kinds of sex anyway, especially after the less gushy types of sex become "old hat." (no pun intended)

As far as which of these proposed mores (or both or neither) will correlate with lower STD transmission, that is an empirical question, rather than an analytical one because of the roles of subjective things like guilt, enjoyment of orgasm, shame and horniness. I would hate to see a panel that rejected abstinence out of hand. That would be faith-based and not scientific.

|5.12.06 @ 12:53PM|#

Dave W.:

The problem isn't with advocating abstinence in sex education. The problem is abstinence-only sex education, which is the only thing that will make these people happy.

|5.12.06 @ 1:03PM|#

Timothy,

You've confused the CDC with the FDA. The FDA has been thoroughly politicized for years under Bush, like any other federal agency. The CDCs (CsDC?), on the other hand, was established as a group of independent research bodies, not under the control of the executive branch or Congress.

It's too bad they caved.

|5.12.06 @ 1:11PM|#

The problem isn't with advocating abstinence in sex education. The problem is abstinence-only sex education, which is the only thing that will make these people happy.

That's certainly true, but there's a more fundamental issue too. It is one thing to educate people about the relative risks of various behaviors and quite another to tell someone what choice they should make in light of those risks. I'm not sure the government generally has any business with either of those tasks - but it certainly has no business with the second.

|5.12.06 @ 1:26PM|#

|5.12.06 @ 1:35PM|#

I say we replace Congress with the first 4 names from each section of the phonebook except "C".

This just in: The Kennedy family announces that recent geneological research has shown that in the 16th-Century, their forebears were spelling their name Kaaaaannady, and that to celebrate their Irish heritage, they will be reverting to the earlier spelling.

"We've spent $1.2 billion over a 25-year period on abstinence-only programs. Shouldn't we have one study that shows that they work?"

The dirty little secret here is that the same problem applies to non-abstinence based harm-reductions sex education as well. There is no evidence that sex ed that provides detailed information on contraception and disease prevention actually reduces unwanted pregnancies or disease rates. In fact, it is very easy to show that over the decades when sex ed spread so did the very harms it was supposed to offset. Nor is there any clear cut difference in populations exposed to sex ed and those not.

We like to tell ourselves that if people have the right information then they will behave in a "rational" manner that will maximize their long-term happiness, wealth and health. Unfortunately, especially in the case of sex, this has not proven to be the case.

Those pushing abstinence only (which I don't personally agree with) are on firm fact ground when they assert that harm reduction type education doesn't really appear to actually reduce harm. They also at least have a prima fascia case that harm-reduction sex ed makes children think that being sexual promiscuous is acceptable behavior without also convincing them of the need to be sexual responsible when doing so. The net result is that more people have risky sex.

Most people who blindly support harm-reduction sex ed do so because it seems like common sense that education will alter behavior in a positive manner. However, the actual data does not support that conclusion. Human behavior remains as perverse as always.

|5.12.06 @ 1:37PM|#

Why libertarians here are not taking the side of the "abstance only" group one general prinsiple is beyond me.

Because as I said, while most libertarians may not think the government should be bothering with this issue at all, if it is going to do so, it should be limited to a factual education of risks that (perhaps) one may not be aware of to facilitate that individual's ability to make the correct choice for himself. However, it certainly should not extend to telling people what choice they should make given those risks (and benefits!).

lunchstealer|5.12.06 @ 1:39PM|#

DaveW, the science, such as it is, suggests that the most successful method in terms of reducing pregnancy and STDs, full-spectrum sex-ed is most effective.

|5.12.06 @ 1:44PM|#

"marching proudly backwards to the future"

That's the direction these folks are taking us. Check out the satire "The Department of Homeland Decency: Decency Rules and Regulations Manual" for a look at what they really want. It's at www.homelanddecency.com

|5.12.06 @ 1:49PM|#

hmm so a democratic sociaty has choosen to take take money from its citizens and now the recivers of that money are bitching that poeple are demanding that the process of how that money is spent must include people of all sides in a democratic fashion...

So "democracy" trumps science?

If everyone believes that abstinence-only sex education works, then it must ergo work, right? It's just like teaching creationism. Despite all the available data, if the people believe in "intelligent design", there must be something to it. Therefore, we must "teach the controversy" lest we offend the bible-beating tax payers.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. The evidence is what it is, and if it leads to a certain conclusion, then that's the most likely conclusion. It doesn't matter what the taxpayers of this "democracy" think

Why libertarians here are not taking the side of the "abstance only" group one general prinsiple is beyond me.

Because we aren't a bunch of anti-sex prudes who lay awake at 3 AM wondering if someone is having intercourse out of "wedlock." That, and we see the above nonsense for what it is: Social engineering. Something conservatives bitched an moaned about while Democrats were in power, but find perfectly acceptable when done in the name of their fucking god.

|5.12.06 @ 1:50PM|#

It seems to me that the confounding variable in all this is alcohol.

I'm no prude, but I've also been a teetotaler for my entire sexually active life. Not surprisingly, harm-reduction sex ed has worked out pretty well for me. No STDs to date (*knocks on wood*)

lunchstealer|5.12.06 @ 1:56PM|#

Shannon Love: I'm fairly certain I've read some study results that compared groups of children exposed to no sex ed, abstinance-only, and full-spectrum sex ed, and that the full-spectrum sex ed had the best results. I'm not sure how extensive those studies have been, but at least preliminary results seem to be showing good results for full-spectrum sex ed.

Timothy|5.12.06 @ 2:03PM|#

joe: a fair point, but I was thinking of the this. In which the CDC also seems to be saying that there's a bacterial infection going around, and that a few of the people who have it took the abortion pill, so the pill must be related in some way. It's like the Dave W. school of epidemiology.

|5.12.06 @ 2:04PM|#

joshua corning,

1. When did the American demos vote in favor of abstinence-only sex education?

2. When did "Indiana Republican Congressman Mark Souder" become "democracy?"

But let's skip those tribbling details, and get right to the heart of the matter:

3. What happens when the majority party, what with their democratic mandate and all, decide that they want NASA to start using an inferior model of 0-ring on the space shuttle, against the scientifically-validated conclusions of the researchers and technicians the government hired to make that determination?

Me? I wait for the reality-based shuttle to start boarding, thanks.

|5.12.06 @ 2:07PM|#

No STDs to date (*knocks on wood*)

eeew. And ouch.

|5.12.06 @ 2:09PM|#

Timothy,

The information in the body of that story makes it pretty clear that the CDC is not focusing on women who took RU-486 and got this rare disease any more than they are focusing on other correlations. Nor do I see anyone from the CDC saying anything about that correlation, or any of the others mentioned in the story, that assigns any causality, or even goes beyond "There might be a correlation here, let's take a look at it."

The headline writers and political activists seem to have decided that that is the story, but I don't see the CDC making that jump.

|5.12.06 @ 2:10PM|#

"No STDs to date"

Really? How'd you manage that?

"{(*knocks on wood*)"

Oh, yeah: the safest sex of all.

Viking Moose|5.12.06 @ 2:16PM|#

Hey One Handed Practitioner of the dismal science.

aka: master of autocorrelation and heteroskedasticity... (the Duke of Durbin-Watson. The Best at BLUS... the man who put the PROC in proc autoreg... Timothy!!!!!)

here's the STATS take on the RU(trippin)486.

http://www.stats.org/record.jsp?type=news&ID=568

cheers! :)

p.s., may your money be super neutral.

Dave W.|5.12.06 @ 2:39PM|#

DaveW, the science, such as it is, suggests that the most successful method in terms of reducing pregnancy and STDs, full-spectrum sex-ed is most effective.

I haven't seen this science. Notwithstanding your assertions, I am going to guess that the following is what happens:

- full spectrum advocates have studies showing their way works best;

- condom only advocates have studies showing their way works best;

- abstinence only advocates have studies that show that their way works best;

- full spectrum advocates ignore / discount studies besides their own;

- condom only advocates ignore / discount studies besides their own; and

- abstinence only advocates ignore / discount studies besides their own.

HERE IS WHAT SHOULD BE HAPPENING:

1. Science should make a panel with all three of these types so that they can come up with a comparison study that they will all agree to.

2. Government should be staying out of this issue altogether (as Brian Courts suggested). Although gov't involvement in public health issues is often helpful, sex doesn't seem to be one of those areas because it relates to much to personal identity, personal choice and decisions that should be in the decentralized hands of individual families. This isn't Walter Reed studying yellow fever or the British military making penicillin commercially feasible.

|5.12.06 @ 3:08PM|#

Devin

The old name is O Cinneide, BTW.

Kevin

|5.12.06 @ 3:14PM|#

Joe,

when did we have a vote on manditaroy sex ed classes?

Drinking and smoking do kill you and are bad for you but if i want to live in my own little imaginary world where they are good for me what gives you the god damn right to tell me different?

O rings be damned.

And why the fuck do you think it is OK to steal my money to force parents to raise thier kids the way you want them to rather then how they want them to?

Hey i am not for manditory abstance classes but that is not what your problem is...your problem is people raising thier kids the way they want to and the state not having a god damn thing to do with that desision.

|5.12.06 @ 3:24PM|#

Drinking and smoking do kill you and are bad for you but if i want to live in my own little imaginary world where they are good for me what gives you the god damn right to tell me different?

In light of the situation, I think a better question for this analogy would be "what gives the government the right to lie and say that drinking and smoking are actually extremely good for you, and deny evidence to the contrary"?

lunchstealer|5.12.06 @ 3:40PM|#

Dave W.

Googling 'sex education studies' brought up this as the first link. It does appear that of the authors' awareness there is some room for doubt, but that there's reason to be skeptical of abstinence-only programs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_education

|5.12.06 @ 3:44PM|#

|5.12.06 @ 3:50PM|#

oooh good one jennifer lets ignore my arguemnt that government should stay out of it then state that government mandating a certian type of sex ed program is bad then implictly candone by silance when it mandates a different sex ed program that you happen to agree with.

Take a breath before you pass out, Joshua. I'm just pointing out that "should government be in the business of teaching about health issues" is a different question than "should government be in the business of lying about health issues." What they're doing now is the latter.

|5.12.06 @ 3:54PM|#

Because we aren't a bunch of anti-sex prudes who lay awake at 3 AM wondering if someone is having intercourse out of "wedlock." That, and we see the above nonsense for what it is: Social engineering. Something conservatives bitched an moaned about while Democrats were in power, but find perfectly acceptable when done in the name of their fucking god.

bullshit akira,

Sex-ed is mandated and if that is not social engeneering at its worse then I don't know what is. Parents should have to choice as to when and how they educate thier children no matter what program you think is scientificly "proven" to be the best on average.

Putting people of diverse opinions on a board only accentuates this point.

|5.12.06 @ 3:58PM|#

I'm just pointing out that "should government be in the business of teaching about health issues" is a different question than "should government be in the business of lying about health issues."

funny how that point always seems to fall through the cracks when this debate comes up. I mean all the abstance guys being on the board should only highlight the point that gevernment should not be in the buissness of teaching sexual morality regardless if that seaxual morality comes form the left or from the right.

Larry A|5.12.06 @ 3:59PM|#

Political "science" at the CDC is nothing new. It's just that now the Rs are directing it rather than the Ds. Back in the Good Ol Days (mid 1990s) the CDC was churning out junk science anti-gun studies center and left.

|5.12.06 @ 5:16PM|#

Careful, there, Josh, all that spittle and Twinkie crumbs are likely to mess up your keyboard.

STDs are, like it or not, public health issues. I'd agree with other posters that we really ought to be doing better-designed studies to ascertain whether or not sex-education is effective, and if so, which kinds are most effective. And then design our sex-ed based on those results.

|5.12.06 @ 6:12PM|#

joshua asks, "when did we have a vote on manditaroy sex ed classes?"

We didn't. Which is why it is foolish to assign democratic legitimacy to either school of thought - which, I'll point out, is a foolish action one of took, and one of us didn't.

And take your whiny assed angst about the existence of public schools, and find somebody who gives a crap.

|5.12.06 @ 8:04PM|#

If you look outside of the US, there is good evidence that education for women, of any kind, reduces the rate of unwanted pregnancy and the transmission of STD's. There is certainly a strong correlation between STD's unwanted pregnancy, teen pregnancy and general educational level of the female in the US. There is no reason to believe that this would not be improved via education that includes information on specific risks.

Some sample abstracts to consider.

The effect of dislike of school on risk of teenage pregnancy: testing of hypotheses using longitudinal data from a randomised trial of sex education.

Bonell C, Allen E, Strange V, Copas A, Oakley A, Stephenson J, Johnson A.

Public and Environmental Health Research Unit, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT, UK. chris.bonell@lshtm.ac.uk

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To examine whether attitude to school is associated with subsequent risk of teenage pregnancy. To test two hypotheses that attitude to school is linked to pregnancy via pathways involving young people having "alternative" expectations or deficits in sexual health knowledge and confidence. DESIGN: Analysis of longitudinal data arising from a trial of sex education. Examination of associations between attitude to school and protected first sex, unprotected first sex, unprotected and protected last sex, and pregnancy, both crude and adjusting in turn for expectation of parenting by age 20, lack of expectation of education/training at age 20, and sexual health knowledge and confidence. SETTING: Schools in central and southern England. PARTICIPANTS: Girls of median age 13.7 years at baseline, 14.7 years at follow up 1, and 16.0 years at follow up 2. MAIN RESULTS: In unadjusted analysis, attitude to school was significantly associated with protected and unprotected first sex by follow up 1, protected first sex between follow up 1 and 2, unprotected last sex, and pregnancy. Dislike of school was more strongly associated with increased risk of these outcomes than was ambivalence to school. These associations remained after adjusting for socioeconomic status and for expectation of parenting, lack of expectation of education/training, and various indicators of knowledge and confidence about sexual health. CONCLUSIONS: Dislike of school is associated with subsequent increased risk of teenage pregnancy but the mechanism underlying any possible causal link is unlikely to involve "alternative" expectations or deficits in sexual health knowledge or confidence.

DiClemente RJ, Crosby RA.

Emory University, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia 30322, USA. rdiclem@sph.emory.edu

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Given the disproportionate burden of sexually transmitted infections for adolescents, there is an urgent need to identify effective prevention programs. RECENT FINDINGS: This review documents the efficacy of recent sexually transmitted infection-prevention programs. Overall, the review identified few sexually transmitted infection-prevention trials published since 2000. Moreover, considerable variability in program efficacy was observed across studies. Some studies observed changes in sexually transmitted infection-associated risk behaviors, while only a few identified reductions in biologically confirmed sexually transmitted infections. In general, few programs demonstrated consistency of effects and a significant magnitude of effects across a broad range of outcomes. SUMMARY: New and innovative approaches are needed to amplify sexually transmitted infection intervention effects. Program development and evaluation needs to continue in a coordinated, scientifically rigorous fashion to optimize impact and, as important, to sustain effects over protracted periods. Furthermore, for interventions with demonstrated efficacy, a critical challenge is to translate them into sustainable programs that are widely disseminated. Ultimately, preventing sexually transmitted infections in adolescents does not only depend on the development of effective interventions alone, but on how effectively these interventions can be translated and integrated into self-sustaining components of clinic, school or community programs, particularly in those areas and among adolescent populations most adversely impacted by the epidemic of sexually transmitted infection.

Outcomes of three different models for sex education and citizenship programs concerning knowledge, attitudes, and behavior of Brazilian adolescents.

Diaz M, Mello MB, Sousa MH, Cabral F, Castro e Silva R, Campos M, Faundes A.

Reprolatina: Solucoes Inovadoras em Saude Reprodutiva, Campinas, Brazil. mdiaz@reprolatina.org.br

Three different school-based sex education and citizenship programs in public schools in Rio de Janeiro, Belo Horizonte, and Salvador, Brazil, were evaluated in a cross-sectional study comparing knowledge, attitudes, and practices in sexuality, citizenship, and gender issues among adolescents participating in the programs' activities as compared to adolescents enrolled in schools without such programs (controls). Results showed that Salvador's program achieved good results, with significant changes in knowledge on sexuality and reproductive physiology, attitudes regarding citizenship, and current use of modern contraceptives; Rio de Janeiro's program succeeded in improving students' knowledge of reproductive physiology and attitudes towards sexuality; Belo Horizonte's participants showed greater knowledge of reproductive physiology and STI/HIV prevention but had less positive attitudes towards gender issues, while reporting greater sexual activity. The main difference between Salvador's program and the others was the focus on creative and cultural activities; Belo Horizonte's main difference was its lack of interaction with health services and professionals. However, after the evaluation Belo Horizonte reframed its educational strategies and launched a scaling-up process in a joint effort with the health and school systems.

|5.13.06 @ 8:35AM|#

I feel compelled to point out that the notion of fertilizing an egg with sperm is just a theory. In the interest of teaching the controversy, I strongly urge schools to devote equal time to the medieval view, which held that the sperm were actually miniature humans that got implanted in the woman.

|5.13.06 @ 12:13PM|#

In the past week, I've seen Reason regulars assert that there are deep divides among scientists over the greenhouse effect, the efficacy of abstinence education, and the harms of second-hand smoke.

During that same period, I have seen many of the same posters assert strongly that the effect of the minimum wage on the economy is a settled issue, that everyone who knows anything about economics knows.

Frankly, I'd expect people who associate with a magazine called Reason to be a little more reality-based.

czEkSegNaA|5.14.06 @ 3:53PM|#

|5.14.06 @ 9:25PM|#

czEkSegNaA,

Interesting points, but please fix the links.

Thanks.

casino portal|5.16.06 @ 10:14AM|#

McMahon persuasiveness,grandpa Frito wail capitalizers feedings shopkeepers abjured leveler uk online casino cheat roulette bets [url=http://uk-online-casino.casino-here.com/] uk online casino cheat roulette bets [/url] uk online casino cheat roulette bets http://uk-online-casino.casino-here.com/ http://uk-online-casino.casino-here.com/ uneventful?improving casino portal best casinos [url=http://casino-portal.mine-casino.com/] casino portal best casinos [/url] casino portal best casinos http://casino-portal.mine-casino.com/ http://casino-portal.mine-casino.com/ Episcopalianize,envisioned paragon microsystems free online casino [url=http://free-online-casino.casino-ext.com/] free online casino [/url] free online casino http://free-online-casino.casino-ext.com/ http://free-online-casino.casino-ext.com/ aspect Beethoven harrowed,somehow chemically casino game online [url=http://casino-game-online.casino-smile.com/] casino game online [/url] casino game online http://casino-game-online.casino-smile.com/ http://casino-game-online.casino-smile.com/ burned.Winston booty:shiftiness accomplice how to win roulette [url=http://how-to-win-roulette.casino-here.com/] how to win roulette [/url] how to win roulette http://how-to-win-roulette.casino-here.com/ http://how-to-win-roulette.casino-here.com/ Carty deliveries gilt Dmitri gatherer 888 com atlantis casino resort reno [url=http://888-com.4all-casino.com/] 888 com atlantis casino resort reno [/url] 888 com atlantis casino resort reno http://888-com.4all-casino.com/ http://888-com.4all-casino.com/ committee significants casino slot machine casino trips from pittsburgh [url=http://casino-slot-machine.1click-casino.com/] casino slot machine casino trips from pittsburgh [/url] casino slot machine casino trips from pittsburgh http://casino-slot-machine.1click-casino.com/ http://casino-slot-machine.1click-casino.com/ Ludwig ideally Nakayama!Gujarat roundworm play roulette casino blackjack [url=http://casino-blackjack.secured-casino.com/] play roulette casino blackjack[/url] play roulette casino blackjack http://casino-blackjack.secured-casino.com/ http://casino-blackjack.secured-casino.com/ hundred disruptions purification befell stump gambling roulette slot machine download [url=http://slot-machine-download.1click-casino.com/] gambling roulette slot machine download[/url] gambling roulette slot machine download http://slot-machine-download.1click-casino.com/ http://slot-machine-download.1click-casino.com/ rebelliously slipperiness activating!beneficially deviant play free casino games internet gambling casinos [url=http://play-free-casino-games.casino-set.com/] play free casino games internet gambling casinos [/url] play free casino games internet gambling casinos http://play-free-casino-games.casino-set.com/ http://play-free-casino-games.casino-set.com/ breathlessly

free four card keno|5.18.06 @ 12:16PM|#

yes.this is my site http://www.4marine-electronics.com/keno/uk_keno.html Thanks.

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements