The AP filed a story this afternoon that was then run on the New York Times web page. It’s a disconcerting story in its utterly bland representation of the 1991 paper that Holsinger wrote on homosexuality. Here’s a quote:
Committee Chairman Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., said he was worried that Holsinger would let his own ideological beliefs cloud his scientific judgment. He referred to the paper that Holsinger wrote on homosexuality for a study committee of the United Methodist Church.
”Dr. Holsinger’s paper is ideological and decidedly not an accurate analysis of the science then available on homosexuality,” Kennedy said. ”Dr. Holsinger’s paper cherry picks and misuses data to support his thesis that homosexuality is unhealthy and unnatural.”
Holsinger said the 1991 writing was not intended to be a scientific paper and relied on the information available to him at the time.
”First of all, the paper does not represent where I am today. It does not represent who I am today,” Holsinger said.
Holsinger said he was personally troubled by allegations that he harbors bias against gays.
”I’ve worked diligently to provide quality health care to everyone regardless of personal characteristics including sexual orientation,” he said.
As I wrote two days ago, the problems with Holsinger’s paper go beyond the views he expressed on homosexuality, and go beyond what Kennedy claims is a cherry-picking and misusing of data. The problem in that paper, which Holsinger says was not intended to be a scientific paper, is that he doesn’t even cherry pick the data well, nor does he misuse the data in a way that really supports his arguments. The whole paper (which you can find here) is poorly reasoned and weakly written. Whatever it’s intended purpose, it does not represent the quality of work I’d have expected of a 52-year-old doctor (Holsinger’s bio on Wikipedia indicates he was born in 1939).
The article goes on:
Holsinger’s paper is interpreted by gay groups and others as saying that homosexuals face a greater risk of disease and that homosexuality runs counter to anatomical truths.
In the paper, which focuses extensively on human anatomy and the reproductive system, Holsinger said the ”varied sexual practices of homosexual men have resulted in a diverse and expanded concept of sexually transmitted disease and associated trauma.”
Health and Human Services officials said Holsinger wrote the paper when he was asked more than 17 years ago to compile a survey of peer-reviewed scientific data on health issues facing homosexuals.
”Since then, the science has deepened with continued research on these issues. Dr. Holsinger remains focused on addressing the health of all in need, including gay and lesbian populations, consistent with sound science and the best medical practices,” said Health and Human Services spokeswoman Christina Pearson.
It isn’t that gay groups and others interpret the paper to say that homosexuals face greater risk of disease or that homosexuality runs counter to anatomical truths. The paper does say those things. Explicitly. It isn’t a question of spin or interpretation. It’s a question of basic reading comprehension.
And it isn’t okay to explain the paper away by saying it was written more than 17 years ago as a review of peer-reviewed literature on homosexuality, and that the science has deepened since then. Of course the science has deepened since then, but Holsinger’s use of the science that existed when he wrote the paper is poor at best and ideologically driven at worst. It’s nice to say that Holsinger is committed to “addressing the health of all in need…consistent with sound science and the best medical practices” but his paper doesn’t instill confidence in his ability to parse sound science or appropriately evaluate medical or scientific literature.
Meanwhile, HRC reports on the organization’s blog that Holsinger was temporarily stumped today when asked about the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy that keeps gays in the military closeted, or fires them if they come out:
Got this email a little while ago from Lara Schwartz, our legal director, on Holsinger’s stance on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell:
Sen. Sherrod Brown mentioned the 52 fired linguists and asked Holsinger whether homosexuality is more dangerous than untranslated documents and he actually floundered! He eventually stumbled to Al Qaeda being more dangerous, but it took a while.
It’s disconcerting to say the least that a nominee who knows his views on homosexuality are going to be questioned would be unprepared for such a question. It is even more disconcerting that a doctor could possibly believe, or be tempted to believe, that the presence of openly gay members of the military could cause more harm to the military or to the country than might the presence of untranslated intelligence.
It’s not too late to call the Senate switchboard and encourage your senator to support science, intelligence, expertise and experience over loyalty and ideology.
P.S.: According to the AP/NYT article linked above, Holsinger did say he’d resign rather than submit to political pressure to censor his science and his public health program agenda. But he hasn’t convinced me his science-and-health agenda isn’t already in line with the politicians that have done the censoring in the recent past.