Perhaps not entirely, according to a new survey by a Rutgers University sociologist.
The 2003 controversy had a "chilling effect" on many of the researchers in question, leading some to drop important lines of research and a few to change jobs, survey author Joanna Kempner found. Of the 82 sex researchers surveyed, more than half said they now remove sex-related "red flag" words from the titles and summaries of their grant proposals. Removed words or phrases included "gay," "lesbian," "bathhouses" and "needle exchange."
The survey's results, released last night, are published in November's issue of the journal PLoS Medicine.
Kempner characterized the scientists' actions as "self-censorship," writing that congressional oversight "had the unintended consequence of making science less transparent."
Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, said the survey showed that her advocacy had been at least partly successful.
"Scientists generally believe they are god and should not be questioned," Lafferty said. "We were there to hold them accountable. And they didn't like it."
Toomey, the Lehigh Valley Republican who came close to defeating Sen. Arlen Specter (R., Pa.) in the 2004 GOP primary, was traveling and did not respond to a request for comment. He left Congress in January 2005 and is now president and chief executive officer of the Club for Growth, a free-enterprise advocacy group based in Washington.
Members of Congress have sought to rescind research funding before, and politics also has influenced executive decisions on research, such as when President Bush restricted federal funding for studies of stem cells from human embryos. While science may be perceived as an apolitical enterprise, survey author Kempner said that the opposite is true, regardless of the political party in power.
