Балалық шабуыл зерттеуіне қатысты дау және Конгрестің айыптауы

The Rind et al. controversy was a debate in the scientific literature, public media, and government legislatures in the United States regarding a 1998 peer reviewed meta analysis of the self reported harm caused by child sexual abuse (CSA). The debate resulted in the unprecedented condemnation of the paper by both chambers of the United States Congress. The social science research community was concerned that the condemnation by government legislatures might have a chilling effect on the future publication of controversial research results. The study's lead author is the psychologist Bruce Rind; it expanded on a 1997 meta analysis for which Rind is also the lead author. The authors stated their goal was to determine whether CSA caused pervasive, significant psychological harm for both males and females, controversially concluding that the harm caused by child sexual abuse was not necessarily intense or pervasive, that the prevailing construct of CSA was not scientifically valid, as it failed empirical verification, and that the psychological damage caused by the abusive encounters depends on other factors, such as the degree of coercion or force involved. Its definition of harm, for example, has been the subject of debate, as it only examined self reported long term psychological effects in young adults, whereas harm can have several forms, including short term or medical harm (for example, sexually transmitted infections or injuries), a likelihood of revictimization, and the amount of time the victim spent attending therapy for the abuse. The results of the meta analysis indicated that college students who had experienced CSA were slightly less well adjusted compared to other students who had not experienced CSA, but that family environment was a significant confound that may be responsible for the association between CSA and harm. Intense, pervasive harm and long term maladjustment were due to confounding variables in most studies, rather than to the sexual abuse itself (though exceptions were noted for abuse accompanied by force or incest). In March 1999, conservative talk show host Laura Schlessinger criticized the study as "junk science" and stated that, since its conclusions were contrary to conventional wisdom, its findings should never have been released. She criticized the study's use of meta analysis, saying. "I frankly have never seen this in general science. This [pooling of studies] is so outrageous." "This was not a study. They didn’t do a study. They arbitrarily found 59 studies that other people had done [and] combined them all." Shortly thereafter, the North American Man/Boy Love Association posted an approving review of the study on their website, furthering the impression that the piece was an endorsement of pedophilia.

The paper eventually provoked a reaction from several conservative American members of Congress, notably the Republican representatives Matt Salmon of Arizona and Tom DeLay of Texas, who both condemned the study as advocating for the normalization of pedophilia. The APA mandated a policy change by which APA journal editors would alert the organization of potentially controversial topics in order to be more proactive with politicians, the media and other groups. In an internal organization email, APA Executive Vice President Raymond D. Fowler stated that, because of the controversy, the article's methodology, analysis and the process by which it had been approved for publication were reviewed and found to be sound. In June 1999, Fowler announced in an open letter to DeLay that there would be an independent review of the paper and stated that, from a public policy perspective, some language used in the article was inflammatory and inconsistent with the position of the APA's stance on CSA. The APA also implemented a series of actions designed to prevent the study from being used in legal arguments to defend CSA, and stated an independent review would be undertaken of the scientific accuracy and validity of the report. On July 12, 1999, the United States House of Representatives passed HRC resolution 107 by a vote of 355 0, with 13 members voting "Present", The condemnation by Congress of a scientific study was, at that time, an unprecedented event. The resolution passed the Senate by a voice vote (100 0) on July 30, 1999

In September 1999, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), upon a request by the APA to independently review the article, stated that it saw no reason to second guess the peer review process that approved it initially and that it saw no evidence of improper methodology or questionable practices by the authors. The AAAS also expressed concern that the materials reviewed demonstrated a grave lack of understanding of the study on the part of the media and politicians and were also concerned about the misrepresentation of its findings. Four other researchers also discussed possible flaws in the methodology and generalizability of Rind's findings, and concluded the paper's results were scientifically invalid. The criticisms were co published in the 2001 book Misinformation Concerning Child Sexual Abuse and Adult Survivors. In 2002, a rebuttal to many of the claims made by critics was submitted to the APA journal, the American Psychologist by Scott Lilienfeld.

The paper has been criticized for restricting its analysis to convenience samples of college students, possibly introducing systematic bias by excluding victims so traumatized that they did not go on to attend college. Another possibility was that Rind et al. 's conclusions may not be generalizable beyond college populations in general as individuals with a history of CSA were more likely than non abused individuals to drop out of college after a single semester. Rind, Bauserman and Tromovitch responded to this criticism by saying that "the representativeness of college samples is in fact irrelevant to the stated goals and conclusions of our study" since the purpose of their research was "to examine the validity of the clinical concept" of CSA. They added that according to the commonly understood definition of the term, child sexual abuse is extremely and pervasively harmful, meaning that "in any population sampled drug addicts, psychiatric patients, or college students persons who have experienced CSA should show strong evidence of the assumed properties of CSA." The authors of the study say that because the college sample did not show pervasive harm, "the broad and unqualified claims about the properties of CSA are contradicted". Rind et al. also said that using college samples was appropriate because their study found similar prevalence rates and experiences of severity and outcomes between college samples and national samples. Schultz and Jones, 1983; Sedney and Brooks, 1984; Greenwald, 1994; and Sarbo, 1985) specifically identified by Dallam et al. as inappropriate to a study about child sexual abuse. He argued that, while weighting larger studies more than smaller makes sense, combining the results of a large study examining very mild trauma (such as fending off an attacker) with studies of long term physical and sexual abuse was inappropriate and led to erroneous conclusions. The last two studies, according to Dallam et al., were inappropriate because they included respondents who were over the age of 17 when the CSA occurred. Persons 18 years old or older are above the legal age of consent in all states of the USA, and thus are not "children" even in the loosest definition of the term. Rind et al. responded to Dallam et al. by saying that, in the effect size calculations of the Sarbo and Greenwald studies (i. e., the calculations that show the alleged harmfulness of CSA), they had included only respondents aged 16 and 15 and under, respectively, at the time of the CSA to illustrate the lack of a common pattern of symptoms in children who have been abused.

David Spiegel also argued that Rind et al. 's suggestion of relabeling some forms of sexual encounters between adults and children/adolescents as adult child (or adult adolescent) sex is fundamentally flawed, because children cannot give meaningful consent to sexual relations with an adult. Some critics also argued that using value neutral terminology would normalize CSA and that redefining terminology is not in the interest of the general public because it confuses the underlying moral issues. who stated that considering all adult/non adult sexual behavior as abusive and lacking consent can lead to bias in scientific research in the area, and that recognizing this distinction does not necessarily lead to considering adult/non adult sexual interactions as morally permissible.

Dallam et al. also contend that Rind et al. miscoded or misreported significant amounts of the underlying study data, thereby skewing the results. Dallam et al. contend that Rind et al. incorrectly used "Pearson's r" instead of "Cohen's d" to calculate the effect size, which resulted in a failure to correct for base rate differences of CSA in male and female samples, and which led to the finding that males were less harmed by CSA. After correcting for base rate attenuation, Dallam et al. said they arrived at identical effect sizes for male and female samples. The reactions of victims in their adult lives have been found to be extremely varied, ranging from severe to nearly unnoticeable, and many pathologies are not diagnosable in the strictly clinical sense Rind uses. Victims often have a flawed or distorted appraisal of their abuse, minimize the impact as adults often do with traumatic events, and fail to connect distressing and sometimes debilitating pathologies with their experiences. Further, these studies make no accounting for emotional support of the victim's family, clinical treatment of the victim prior to the study, or personal resiliency, which can easily account for less severe outcomes. Dallam and Anna Salter have stated that Rind and Bauserman have associated with age of consent reform organizations in the past. In the years before the paper was written, both Rind and Bauserman had published articles in Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia, a journal which was dedicated to "[demonstrating] that pedophilia has been, and remains, a legitimate and productive part of the totality of human experience". In addition, Dallam and Salter stated that Rind and Bauserman were keynote speakers at a pedophile advocacy conference occurring in the Netherlands. and it has been used in criminal court in the U. S. by attorneys defending those accused of child sexual offenses. A study by Heather Ulrich and two colleagues published in The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice attempted to replicate the Rind study, correcting for methodological and statistical problems identified by Dallam and others. It supported some of the Rind findings, both with respect to the percentage of variance in later psychological outcome accounted for by sexual abuse and in relation to the finding that there was a gender difference in the experience of child sexual abuse, such that females reported more negative effects. It, however, acknowledged the limitations of the findings (college student sample, self report data), and did not endorse Rind's recommendation to abandon the use of the term child sexual abuse in cases of apparent consent in favor of the term adult child sex. In their conclusion, the authors address the objection that Rind's work and their own would give support to those who deny that child sexual abuse can cause harm: "The authors of the current research would hesitate to support such a general statement. Instead, our results, and the results of the Rind et al. meta analysis, can be interpreted as providing a hopeful and positive message to therapists, parents, and children. Child sexual abuse does not necessarily lead to long term harm." There has been greater emphasis in subsequent work on the range of responses that are possible from victims. For example, a few studies make reference to the paper's findings about "consensual" encounters, but approach it from the opposite direction (i. e., that the use of force causes more intense negative outcomes). Heather Ulrich, author of the aforementioned replication of the meta analysis, later drew on the findings to study the reasons for the variability in outcomes of CSA victims, such as attributional style (individual's causal explanations for why the abuse occurred), family environment, and social support.