My Slate Article on the Importance of Replicating Science

By Michelle N. Meyer, Assistant Professor and Director of Bioethics Policy

I have a long article in Slate (with Union psychology professor Chris Chabris) on the importance of replicating science. We use a recent (and especially bitter) dispute over the failure to replicate a social psychology experiment as an occasion for discussing several things of much broader import, including:

  • The facts that replication, despite being a cornerstone of the scientific method, is rarely practiced (and even less frequently published) not only in psychology but across science, and that when such studies are conducted, they frequently fail to replicate the original findings (let this be a warning to those of you who, like me, cite empirical literature in your scholarship);
  • Why replications are so rarely conducted and published, relative to their importance (tl;dr: it’s the incentives, stupid);
  • Why it’s critical that this aspect of the academic research culture change (because academic science doesn’t only affect academic scientists; the rest of us have a stake in science, too, including those who fund it, those who help researchers produce it (i.e., human subjects), those who consume and build on it (other scholars and policy-makers), and all of us who are subject to myriad laws and policies informed by it); and
  • Some better and worse ways of facilitating that cultural change (among other things, we disagree with Daniel Kahneman’s most recent proposal for conducting replications).

[The contents of this post are solely the responsibility of the author alone and do not represent the views of the Bioethics Program or Union Graduate College.]

Advertisements

Care or Kickbacks?

In the complicated world of HMOs and referrals, some health care systems have started enforcing “continuity of care” policies that keep patients within that hospital system.  The stated goal of this policy is to facilitate care through one group of physicians and one medical record system.  However, it seems that systems like this do more good for the hospital budget than for overall patient care.  In a new blog post, Program Alumna Theresa Spranger discusses an experience that she had with one of these policies in “Continuity of Care or a Culture of Kickbacks?

 

She Ain’t Heavy, She’s My Brother

by Sean Philpott-Jones, Director of the Center for Bioethics and Clinical Leadership

Actress Laverne Cox made history last week when she was nominated for an Emmy for Outstanding Guest Actress for her role on the hit show “Orange is the New Black.” Ms. Cox is the first openly transgender actress to receive an Emmy nomination. While Hollywood has been increasingly open to portraying transgendered individuals in a positive light — such as Jarod Leto’s Oscar-winning turn last year a transgendered woman in the Dallas Buyers Club — even the progressive entertainment industry falls prey to the stereotype that transgendered people are just men or women in drag. That the Emmy’s nominating committee made a point to list Laverne Cox as an actress is a welcome change.

Even if she doesn’t win the Emmy, Ms. Cox’s nomination is a big victory for the transgendered community. Although great strides have made towards achieving social and legal equality for most members of the LGBT (lesbian-gay-bisexual-and-transgender) community, most transgendered Americans face blatant discrimination, open hostility, and institutionalized violence. Moreover, the LGBT community itself has generally overlooked the concerns of transgendered individuals.

Part of the problem is that the acronym LGBT is largely used to refer to a community of individuals who, are, in some way, attracted physically, romantically, spiritually or emotionally to members of the same sex. But many people fail to realize that the “T” in the acronym doesn’t relate to sexual attraction at all. Rather, it refers to a personal sense of gender.

Transgender is an umbrella term that is used to describe people whose gender identity, expression or behavior is different from those typically associated with their assigned sex at birth. But that term encompasses a large and diverse community. It includes gender-nonconforming who self-identify as male-to-female (transgender women), female-to-male (transgender men), those who consider themselves to be bigender, and those who fall elsewhere on the traditional gender spectrum, among others.

The actual number of transgendered individuals in the US is unknown. According to a recent survey on sexual orientation and health conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 96% of Americans consider themselves heterosexual, 2% gay or lesbian, 1% bisexual, and 1% “something else.” But this doesn’t mean that 1 out of every 100 Americans is transgendered. The study asked only about sexual orientation, not gender identity.

Similarly, while the 2010 US Census was the first in history to report how many Americans lived in a same-sex partnership, questions about gender were strictly binary. The biological sex of each person was recorded, either as male or female, but no questions were asked about gender identity. Transgendered individuals had no way to express their transgendered status even if they wanted to. Many do not publicly acknowledge their transgender status, however, because of stigmatization and discrimination. The transgender community is thus largely invisible, which is why Laverne Cox’s Emmy nomination is all that more important.

Consider the importance of visibility the struggle of gay rights in this country. The Stonewall riots were a watershed moment for the gay rights movement precisely because they increased the public visibility of gay men and women. That visibility and the concomitant confidence of early gay activists helped to pave the way for others to come out and made many Americans realize that they had gay siblings, gay children, gay neighbors, gay friends and gay coworkers. It becomes hard to justify legal or social discrimination against a class of people like gay men and women when you realize that they are just another group within the mainstream culture.

Laverne Cox’s Emmy nomination is, I hope, a watershed moment for the transgendered community. By standing on the Emmy stage as a proud and successful transgendered woman, she provides a positive and public role model for closeted transgendered youth who live a life of fear, shame and marginalization. She has also used her newfound celebrity to focus people’s attention on the extreme levels of discrimination and violence faced by the transgender community. Without folks like Laverne leading this charge, for example, it would be hard to imagine politicians even proposing transgender-inclusive laws like those that would allow students to use bathroom facilities that are consistent with their gender identities rather than their biological sex.

This increased visibility does have its downsides, including the flood of vitriolic and rancorous attacks launched at Ms. Cox by right-wing pundits and the slew of anti-transgender laws that have been proposed by various local, state and national officials. But even those bigoted assaults raise the public profile of the transgender community, move discussions of transgender identity into the mainstream, and help pave a path towards increasing equality and acceptance.

[This blog entry was originally presented as an oral commentary on Northeast Public Radio on July 17, 2014, and is available on the WAMC website. The contents of this post are solely the responsibility of the author alone and do not represent the views of the Bioethics Program or Union Graduate College.]

The Curious Case of Hobby Lobby

by Sean Philpott-Jones, Director of the Center for Bioethics and Clinical Leadership

The news was chock-a-block with important health stories this week, including new evidence debunking the vaccine-autism myth and the revelation that researchers conducted a legal albeit ethically questionable study that manipulated the emotions of nearly 700,000 Facebook users. But I want to talk about the 900-lb. gorilla in the room: the US Supreme Court’s decision in the so-called “Hobby Lobby” case (Burwell et al. v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. et al.)

Hobby Lobby, a privately owned chain of 640 arts and crafts stores with more than 13,000 employees, appealed for an exemption to the contraceptive requirements of the Affordable Care Act. While Hobby Lobby includes most forms of contraception under its employee health insurance plan, they do not include those forms of contraception – intrauterine devices (IUDs) and morning-after pills – that they consider to be abortificants.

Whether or not those forms of birth control induce abortions (they largely don’t) is actually immaterial to this case. What matters is whether or not a private company like Hobby Lobby can forced to provide a form of contraception that runs contrary to the religious beliefs of the owners.

In a sharply divided 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that requiring family-owned corporations to pay for insurance coverage for contraception violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Closely held corporations – businesses where more than 50 percent of the stock is owned by five individuals or less – will no longer be required to provide insurance coverage for contraception if doing so violates the owners’ religious beliefs.

The Hobby Lobby case revolved around two questions. First, can a for-profit corporation like Hobby Lobby be considered a ‘person’ under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. That Act states that the government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion”. As strange as it may sound, the answer to this question is an unequivocal ‘yes’. Corporations are presumptively treated as persons under the law, and the federal government has recognized that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act protects non-commercial corporations like churches.

Second, does the contraception mandate in the Affordable Care Act substantially burden Hobby Lobby? The Religious Freedom Restoration Act does not give carte blanche to all faith-based beliefs and activities. The parents of a severely ill child, for example, cannot refuse to allow lifesaving treatments even if those treatments violate their religious beliefs. But the law requires that there be a compelling state interest and the government use “the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling interest.”

A strong argument can be made that providing universal contraceptive coverage is in the best interests of the state. The social, economic, and medical benefits of preventing unintended pregnancy are significant. For example, every $1 invested in family planning services saves nearly $4 in pregnancy-related Medicaid expenditures. Hormonal contraceptives like birth control pills are also used to treat a variety of medical conditions, including migraines, premenstrual dysphoric disorder, and polycystic ovary syndrome.

This point wasn’t even in dispute. What the Supreme Court’s majority held, however, was that there were less burdensome alternatives to achieving universal contraceptive coverage. The federal government has already created exemptions to the contraceptive mandate for non-profit religious organizations, requiring insurance companies to offer contraception coverage directly to employees who want it rather than as part of an employer-provided plan. These exemptions could be extended to closely-held for-profit companies like Hobby Lobby.

This is where I find fault with the Supreme Court’s ruling. Writing for the majority, Justice Alito states that the federal government has “at its disposal an approach that is less restrictive than requiring employers to fund contraceptive methods that violate their religious beliefs.” But this too is being challenged in federal court under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Over 100 religiously affiliated non-profits are suing over that accommodation, arguing that it amounts to complicity in sin. These employers are not providing or paying for contraceptives – the use of which violates their religious beliefs – but the very fact that they have to offer health insurance at all sets in motion the events that lead to contraceptive use. This, the plaintiffs claim, violates their rights. Should the various courts rule in their favor, the less burdensome alternative mentioned in Alito’s majority opinion could no longer exist.

Moreover, the question of complicity in sin is challenging one. It is more suited to philosophical or theological debates than courtroom testimony. For instance, should we apply this to the Hobby Lobby case, we could question the sincerity of that complaint by noting that their employee retirement plan invests heavily in companies that produce contraceptive pills and IUDs. They also sell large numbers of products that are made in China, a country whose one-child policy mandates the use of contraceptives or abortion as a means of controlling population growth.

In her scathing dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote, “the court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield.” No truer or more prophetic words have likely been written. Should current accommodations to the contraceptive mandate be struck down, for example, the majority opinion in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby will have no constitutional standing. The ruling is also likely to have far ranging consequences, as it calls into question decades of court decisions that have denied religious exemptions from laws that apply to all private businesses or individuals. The consequences of the Court’s expected but ill-considered decision are likely to be far-ranging and precedent-shattering.

[This blog entry was originally presented as an oral commentary on Northeast Public Radio on July 3, 2014, and is available on the WAMC website. The contents of this post are solely the responsibility of the author alone and do not represent the views of the Bioethics Program or Union Graduate College.]