Science Magazine Finally Retracts Study on LGBT Activists
A discredited study that came into headlines after one of its authors claimed that the lead author did not disclose complete information to him now has been formally retracted. The study alleges that LGBT activists can change the minds of traditional marriage supporters only in one conversation.
On Thursday, the magazine Science said on the website stated that with the concurrence of author Donald P. Green, it is retracting the report ‘when contact changes minds: An experiment on transmission of support for gay equality’, which was published last December 12.
According to Science, the promised survey incentives were misrepresented. It said that the study authors Michael LaCour and Green said that they will pay the study participants for performing tasks such as enrolling, referring family and friends and to complete multiple surveys.
However, Science said it confirmed with Green’s co-author, LaCour and hew told that no such payments were made by Green.
Science said, “In the report, LaCour acknowledged funding from the Williams Institute, the Ford Foundation, and the Evelyn and Walter Haas Jr. Fund. Per correspondence from LaCour's attorney, this statement was not true”.
On Friday, LaCour released a lengthy statement taking complete responsibility for errors, implementation, and data collection regarding the field experiments and panel survey reported.
He even apologized for misrepresenting the survey incentives and funding, though he also defended some of the survey's results.
LaCour said he received a grant from the Williams Institute, but he never accepted the funds, the LA GLBT received funding from the Evelyn and Walter Haas Jr. Fund., and the Ford Foundation grant did not exist.
Furthermore, he said, the graduation student said that he raffled Apple computers, tablets, and iPods to survey respondents as incentives.
The major reason given by Science for retraction included the fact that the independent researchers have noted certain statistical irregularities in the responses.
LaCour did not produce the original survey data from which someone else could independently confirm the validity of the reported findings.