I have a remarkable saga to relate concerning Frank Sulloway's
controversial work _Born to Rebel_ (1996), last discussed on this
list back in August (by Aubry Fulton, also me). Sulloway's thesis is
that birth order is a variable of great significance throughout
history and that, in general, later-borns are "born to rebel". My own
acquaintance with his theory is modest. I've quickly read thorugh his
book and came to the opinion that while it purported to be a
scientific evaluation of the evidence bearing on his theory, it was
more literary than scientific, more pseudo-science than science.
However, it has been taken seriously. For example, MIchael Shermer,
the editor of _Skeptic_ magazine, callled it "the most rigorously
scientific work of history ever written {cited by Townsend (2000, p.
205)). It is the subject of numerous book reviews in prominent
publications, and at least two attempts have been made to replicate
the "meta-analysis" [this characterization has been questioned]
provided by Sulloway as central support for his theory. Both
replications failed (Modell, 1997; Harris, 1998, Appendix I; see
also Harris, 2002).
Now there is yet another evaluation of Sulloway's theory, in the form
of a special issue of the journal _Politics and the Life Sciences_.
It contains as the target article a detailed critical analysis by
Frederick Townsend of Sulloway's theory, 12 commentaries by selected
scholars (I recognize Ray Blanchard, Cecile Ernst, and Judy Harris,
among others), no less than two responses from Frank Sulloway, one
from Frederic Townsend, and an "editorial", actually a long essay by
the editor of the journal, Gary Johnson, on the extraordinary
history of this special issue, and his own evaluation of Sulloway's
work.
Why is this a saga? The front cover of the issue gives a clue. It
says "Volume 19, no. 2, September 2000 (Appearing in print February,
2004)." The saga is why publication of this issue of _Politics and
the Life Sciences_ was delayed for almost five years after
submission of Townsend's article.
The short answer is legal threat. Sulloway was determined to prevent
publication of Sulloway's critique, and began an all-out war to
ensure that this would never occur. Part of the reason was ostensibly
that Townsend, a lawyer, lacked formal qualifications in psychology,
and Sulloway therefore considered him unqualified and therefore
unworthy of evaluating his theory. But in science, it's not who you
are, but what you've got to say that counts. And Townsend had plenty
to say about Sulloway's theory, largely uncomplimentary. I think a
more obvious reason for Sulloway's determination to prevent
publication may be that Sulloway felt that his theory was above
criticism and he would therefore tolerate none. (I have to be careful
here: Sulloway has warned that accusing him of "attempting to avoid
scholarly criticism"..."may be a defamation in its own right"
(Johnson, 2000, p. 217))
So Sulloway began a barrage of legal threats against Townsend,
against the journal editor, Gary Johnson and against the journal
itself. Here's one of them, from a letter from Sullivan to the
president of Johnson's university, with a copy to the chair of its
board of trustees:
"I intend to file charges of misconduct against one of your faculty
members, Gary R. Johnson...these allegations include, but are not
necessarily limited to: defamation/libel, false light invasion of
privacy, fraud, promissory estoppel, and breach of fiduciary duty".
As if that were not enough, he also threatened, "I will also be
blowing the whistle by filing formal charges of scientific misconduct
against Gary Johnson with the American Political Science Association,
the Human Behavior and Evolution Society, members of Congress who
have shown a concern about science fraud, and all other professional
organizations with which Professor Johnson or his journal "Politics
and the Life Sciences" are affiliated" (Johnson, 2000, p. 222).
Who wouldn't be intimidated by such an onslaught! As Johnson (2000,
p. 213) noted, although his "natural inclination" was to examine the
manuscript for justifiable changes and then to ignore the threats and
publish, this would be unwise, as "merely defending oneself against
a defamation suit--no matter how unjustified--would involve enormous
legal fees. Since the threat seemed to be pointedly directed at me
personally...I had to consider the possibility that simply defending
myself would gravely threaten the welfare of my family".
To Johnson's credit, he did publish, but only after a near-five year
delay during which repeated attempts at resolution failed, and only,
when the journal publisher refused to publish out of fear of
litigation, by terminating the contract with the publisher, and
publishing it himself.
This is a tangled story which I can't do justice to here, and you'll
have to read Johnson's editorial for the full version. But here's an
example of what Sulloway demanded in order to resolve the dispute. He
wanted Townsend to revise his manuscript to remove all material which
Sulloway considered defamatory, the revisions to be reviewed by
Sulloway's lawyer. Then he said it would still be "_legally
mandatory_" for editor Johnson to preface Townsend's critique with
this extraordinary warning:
"...It is normally not the policy of this journal to publish data
that are known, in advance, to be actually or potentially in error,
especially when such data are being used in an attack on another
scholar. However, as editor of this journal, I have decided that it
serves the purposes of science...to publish these erroneous data in
their present form. Readers are warned, however, that none of
Townsend's empirical claims, or the conclusions that are based on
them, can be trusted with any degree of certainty. Townsend has also
made other blatant errors of fact and interpretation that are now
known to the editor and that seriously affect the credibility of this
paper" (Johnson, 2000, p. 213).
You will not be surprised to learn that Johnson did not publish this
disclaimer helpfully provided for him by Sulloway. But as I read
through Townsend's critique, I see that the poor put-upon man felt
compelled, in self-defense, to extreme caution in the way he phrased
his conclusions. Consequently, he would frequently end a section of
powerful criticism by innocuously concluding only that "an
examination of these results seems warranted"; "a re-examination
would be appropriate"; or "a closer examination of thse results seems
warranted".
There is definitely an element of the farcical about this story,
although those who survived what Johnson calls an "ordeal"
undoubtedly derived little amusement from it. But there is a serious
lesson. The story illustrates the use of threat of legal action to
silence critics of a theory; fortunately, this time it did not
succeed. But this is not the first time this tactic has been used,
and it will not be the last. Here are Gary Johnson's thoughts on the
matter (p. 241)
"The virtual terror that Sulloway's legal threats have prompted in
some of those associated--directly or indirectly--with the events
described in this editorial suggests to me that contemporary science
must adapt to a changed socio-legal environment if the capacity for
open dialogue and critical exchange that is the lifeblood of science
and scholarship is to be protected. Scholars, scientists, and
publishers cannot focus properly on what should be their principal
concerns if the threat of catastrophic legal costs hangs over them
and their organizations and journals. One way to reduce the level of
threat that individuals and small organizations face would be to
establish a multidisciplinary legal defense fund supported by a large
number of scientific and scholarly organizations".
Good idea.
If anyone would like to obtain (presumably to purchase) a copy of
this special issue, Gary Johnson's e-mail address is:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Frederick Townsend is at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Frank Sulloway is at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Stephen
References
Harris, J. (1998). The Nurture Assumption. Touchstone.
Harris, J. (2002). The mystery of _Born to Rebel_: Sulloway's
re-analysis of old birth order data. Available on-line at:
http://xchar.home.att.net/tna/birth-order/methods.htm
Johnson, G. (2000). Editorial: Science, Sulloway, and birth order:
an ordeal and an assessment. Politics and the Life Sciences, 19,
211- 245
Modell, J. (1997). Family niche and intellectual bent. Science,
275, 624--
Townsend, F. (2000). Birth order and rebelliousness: reconstructing
the research in _Born to Rebel_. Politics and the Life Sciences,
19, 135--156
Townsend, F. (2000). Taking _Born to Rebel_ seriously: the
need for independent review. Politics and the Life Sciences, 19,
205-210.
___________________________________________________
Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. tel: (819) 822-9600 ext 2470
Department of Psychology fax: (819) 822-9661
Bishop's University e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lennoxville, QC J1M 1Z7
Canada
Dept web page at http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy
TIPS discussion list for psychology teachers at
http://faculty.frostburg.edu/psyc/southerly/tips/index.htm
_______________________________________________
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
