|
|
 |
|||||
|
|||||||
 |
|
|
|||||
|
by Ken Sanes But a closer look at the study raises questions, both about the tactics that were used by researchers and the results that were obtained. More to the point, it suggests that the study may not be so much a work of medical research as an effort to advance a political agenda in the service of gun control. As reported in Pediatrics, researchers in the study placed groups of two or three 8- to 12-year-old boys in an examination room in an outpatient clinic for up to 15 minutes. The boys were told they could play with toys placed on the counter. But nothing was said to them about two water pistols that were in a drawer. Nor was anything said about what was in another drawer --a .380 caliber semiautomatic handgun, which had been modified so it posed no physical danger to the boys. When the adults left, many of the boys opened the drawers, found the gun and proceeded to play with it. Of the 29 groups of boys, 21 discovered the gun, 16 handled the gun and one or more boys in 10 of the groups pulled the trigger. Many of these boys had received training on gun safety so, presumably, they knew about the danger of guns. On its face, the story seems chilling. An image that accompanied the story on CNN.com, of what appears to be one of the boys aiming a gun at another boy, can only have added to the sense of disquiet it generated in many readers. But Nick Castille, an engineer who participated in a forum for subscribers at the Pediatrics journal web site, took a more critical look than was offered by some of the news media. What he noticed was that the researchers in the study put the gun in the same room with toys. As Castille put it in the online forum: "The authors conclude that 'Guns that are kept in homes should be stored in a manner that renders them inaccessible to children'. This conclusion is not supported by the study. A correct conclusion would have been 'Guns that are kept in hospitals should not be stored in a context that suggests they are playthings, such as in a cabinet with toys that test subjects have been encouraged to investigate' ". Castille's criticism doesn't only challenge the results of the study, which is ironically titled, "Seeing Is Believing: What Do Boys Do When They Find a Real Gun?" It also raises questions about whether the researchers intended to influence the boys to pick up the gun, which would produce a more dramatic outcome for the study. The image on CNN.com appears to back up Castille's criticism. It doesn't only show one of the boys in the study aiming what is presumably a real gun at a second boy. It also shows the second boy holding what looks like a water pistol. If that's what it is, it suggests a context was created in which guns were thought of as toys, and the real gun and water pistols were seen as different tools for play acting. But Castille isn't the only critic of the study. Two physicians, who also participated in the online forum, have accused the study of political bias. Each suggests, in so many words, that the study's real purpose is to influence public opinion in favor of gun control. Dr. Thivakorn Kasemsri wrote that, at best, the study, "reiterated an irrefutable fact," and "at worst, it shines light on the fact that pediatricians are willing to wrap the cloak of science around a political agenda…." Dr. Thomas M. Ryan, who supports National Rifle Association education efforts on gun safety, concluded, "This type of biased commentary has no place in a reputable scientific journal and only undermines credibility." The fact that the study was published by Pediatrics, which is put out by the American Academy of Pediatrics, seems to lend credence to these claims of bias since the organization has called for a ban on handguns and assault weapons. But there are other questions that are raised by the tactics of the study, as well. The researchers used a set-up that is all-too common in human research. They created an artificial situation in a room and then, along with the parents, one researcher secretly watched the boys respond to the situation through a one-way mirror. The boys were also secretly videotaped. To help motivate the parents to let their children be used this way, the parents were offered $25 for each child in the study. One has to ask if it was really necessary to subject the boys to this kind of situation? Don't children have the right to not be misled, secretly monitored and incorporated into what looks like a variation on reality programming? The offensive quality of what was done to the boys is brought home by the fact that, after the experiment, "each boy and his parents received counseling about safe behavior around guns." according to the journal article on the study. In other words, adults tricked them into doing something wrong and then lectured them about not doing wrong in the future. I think we can assume that, for some of these boys, this turned out to be an unpleasant experience conducive to feelings of betrayal and shame. The fact that a picture of one of the boys aiming a gun at another boy appeared on CNN.com raises even more questions. Taking pictures of these boys for the purposes of documenting the study is one thing. Using the pictures to provide the kind of dramatic visual element the media looks for is something else. When you add all this up, the study begins to look like an effort to use children to dramatize the danger of guns. It seems less like scientific research and more like a media pseudo-event, designed to get publicity. I'd like to be able to tell you what the authors of the study have to say about all this. Unfortunately, three of the four authors who were contacted for comment, including Dr. Geoffrey A. Jackman, had not responded by the time this column was posted. What is clear is that they consider this study to be only preliminary. They describe it as a "pilot study" and say that a "definitive study would require testing a larger number of children in a variety of settings." That may provide researchers with more employment opportunities but it is probably bad news for privacy rights since this study has already been used by one news organization, CNN.com, to enlarge the intrusions into children's lives. Accompanying its story on the study are lesson plans for teachers, which include the following suggestion: "Survey the class and determine how many of the students' households have guns. Then ask the students, 'What specific information have your parents shared with you about gun safety?' " One has to wonder when it became the role of teachers to intrude in on families this way? What this looks like is a maneuver to impose a little gun control from the classroom, getting teachers to gather information about which families have guns and how parents are raising their children. If schools want to provide gun safety education and give kids information to take home for their parents to read, that is one thing. Gathering information on "how many of the students' households have guns" is another. This "lesson plan", like the study, demonstrates only too well that we live in a world in which people profit from manipulating and intruding in on other people. The boys who were tricked in this research study learned a little bit about how that works. They received a lesson about the world as it is, where things aren't what they appear to be and people aren't to be trusted. It is a world in which children get turned into pawns in adult battles. And in which research experiments and news articles can also be powerful weapons used to enforce someone's point of view. ------- Notes: And, of course, it is likely that fewer boys would have played with the gun if the study had been designed differently. Put them in a room without toys and warn them sternly to stay away from the gun and the results might have been less dramatic -- and less attractive to the media. * The study was also designed "to compare parental expectations of their child's interest in real guns with this observed behavior." It found that "Parental estimates of their child's interest in guns did not predict actual behavior on finding the handgun. Boys who were believed to have a low interest in real guns were as likely to handle the handgun or pull the trigger as boys who were perceived to have a moderate or high interest in guns." But this is a minor finding. * Just in case anyone wonders if I have a pro-NRA political bias here, I should say that I am generally in favor of the kinds of gun regulations advocated by the Democrats. Abstract
of study
|
|
||||||
 |
|||||||
