At 1:55 AM -0700 1/20/01, Chris Rasch wrote:
>Even if you have no a priori strong opinion, I think it would be wise to
>be skeptical of studies funded by ideological organizations. For
>example, I would be quite skeptical of a study performed by HandGun
>Control, Inc. and I am sympathetic to those on the opposite side of the
>issue who find a study by two University of Chicago professors
>unpersuasive.
To begin with, neither John Lott nor David Mustard is or was a
University of Chicago professor. Mustard was, I'm pretty sure, a grad
student, and Lott was an Olin Fellow--a visiting position.
>As a model of how to help break this deadlock, I would like to see more
>studies funded by organizations modelled along the lines of the US
>Environmental Protection Agency's Health Effects Institute.
Why do you regard that as more neutral than the University of Chicago
Law School, even assuming (contrary to fact) that the University of
Chicago Law School controls the research done by a faculty fellow on
a one or two year visiting appointment?
Insofar as people at U of C Law School have any ideological bias on
these issues, it is in the opposite of the direction of Lott's
research; while Chicago is less left wing than other major law
schools (and the left wing people it has tend to be more
interesting), that doesn't make it a hotbed of NRA support. I would
be surprised if the Republican candidate for president had gotten a
majority of votes of the law school professors at Chicago in any
election over the past fifty years, or if as many as a quarter of the
faculty were opposed to gun control laws. To the University's credit,
its scholars produce research across a wide range of ideological
positions.
Don't you find something a little odd about comparing HandGun
Control, Inc. to the University of Chicago, with the implication that
they are both organizations pushing an agenda? Surely the comparison
should be to the NRA. Or, if you prefer, you could compare work done
at Chicago to work done at Harvard.
If anything, the institute you describe strikes me as more likely to
act on a political agenda than a major university is. As you describe
it, it is directly funded by the EPA and the automobile industry,
both parties with large axes to grind. While there are many issues on
which the two disagree, there may others on which their interest is
in common--so why would you trust the output of such an institute?
--
David Friedman
Professor of Law
Santa Clara University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
