5 ms·

> Censoring the CDC, of all organizations. This isn't the first time it's happened. The Dickey Amendment in 1996 forced the CDC to stop research on gun-related

by evan_ 9y ago

> Censoring the CDC, of all organizations. This isn't the first time it's happened. The Dickey Amendment in 1996 forced the CDC to stop research on gun-related injuries because the NRA was upset. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment_(1996) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment_(1996)

beebmam 9y ago
Wow. Holy cow. Why aren't doctors pushing back politically on this?
- smsm42 9y ago
  I suspect the sets of actual doctors (I mean, those that work on healing people) and people wanting to use the mantle of CDC to institute gun control regulations have rather small intersection.
- djur 9y ago
  They are: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dickey-amendment-gun-violence-research-ban_us_56606201e4b072e9d1c4eaaa https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dickey-amendment-gun-vi... The firearms industry wields a great deal of power in Washington through its lobbying and advocacy organization, the NRA.
thrden 9y ago
Interestingly that seems to be a result of the CDC's own political leanings. They seemed to pursue the research with an explicit political goal, rather than research the effects of gun violence, and then find a goal[1]. Further, the Dickey amendment doesn't actually force the CDC to avoid researching the issue but rather preventing it from using federal money . to promote gun control: "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control"[2] [1]https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/12/why-we-cant-trust-the-cdc-with-gun-research-000340 https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/12/why-we-cant-tr... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment_(1996) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment_(1996)
- grigjd3 9y ago
  If you don't understand that barring a conclusion from receiving federal funding is effectively barring the research itself, then you don't understand academic research. Even if you legitimately don't find gun control to be a solution from your research, that you would lose your funding if you did means there is necessarily a financial incentive with no basis in fact to have or not have certain results - invalidating the research. The actual effect is that it bars research into gun violence, even if that is not the letter of the law.
- jogjayr 9y ago
  What if it turns out that research suggests gun control is effective in reducing gun violence? Note, I'm not saying that it is effective; I have no dog in this fight and don't know enough. But the law effectively says to the CDC "You're allowed to research this health issue, but if you come to a conclusion that's politically unacceptable, you can't share it." The result is that the CDC now believes any gun violence research to be likely to result in political reprisal against them come budget time.[1] 1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2015/01/14/why-the-cdc-still-isnt-researching-gun-violence-despite-the-ban-being-lifted-two-years-ago/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2015/01/14/...
- djur 9y ago
  [1] is an unsourced op-ed by a representative of the NRA's lobbying arm, who advocated for the amendment in the first place. Here's an opposing view: http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.as...

by evan_ 9y ago

beebmam 9y ago

Wow. Holy cow. Why aren't doctors pushing back politically on this?

smsm42 9y ago
I suspect the sets of actual doctors (I mean, those that work on healing people) and people wanting to use the mantle of CDC to institute gun control regulations have rather small intersection.
djur 9y ago
They are: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dickey-amendment-gun-violence-research-ban_us_56606201e4b072e9d1c4eaaa https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dickey-amendment-gun-vi... The firearms industry wields a great deal of power in Washington through its lobbying and advocacy organization, the NRA.

thrden 9y ago

Interestingly that seems to be a result of the CDC's own political leanings. They seemed to pursue the research with an explicit political goal, rather than research the effects of gun violence, and then find a goal[1]. Further, the Dickey amendment doesn't actually force the CDC to avoid researching the issue but rather preventing it from using federal money . to promote gun control: "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control"[2] [1]https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/12/why-we-cant-trust-the-cdc-with-gun-research-000340 https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/12/why-we-cant-tr... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment_(1996) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment_(1996)

grigjd3 9y ago
If you don't understand that barring a conclusion from receiving federal funding is effectively barring the research itself, then you don't understand academic research. Even if you legitimately don't find gun control to be a solution from your research, that you would lose your funding if you did means there is necessarily a financial incentive with no basis in fact to have or not have certain results - invalidating the research. The actual effect is that it bars research into gun violence, even if that is not the letter of the law.
jogjayr 9y ago
What if it turns out that research suggests gun control is effective in reducing gun violence? Note, I'm not saying that it is effective; I have no dog in this fight and don't know enough. But the law effectively says to the CDC "You're allowed to research this health issue, but if you come to a conclusion that's politically unacceptable, you can't share it." The result is that the CDC now believes any gun violence research to be likely to result in political reprisal against them come budget time.[1] 1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2015/01/14/why-the-cdc-still-isnt-researching-gun-violence-despite-the-ban-being-lifted-two-years-ago/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2015/01/14/...
djur 9y ago
[1] is an unsourced op-ed by a representative of the NRA's lobbying arm, who advocated for the amendment in the first place. Here's an opposing view: http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.as...