LGBT Bias was main cause Science Magazine retracting same-sex study

A highly publicized same-sex study with falsified results was formally  retracted by the Science magazine last Thursday for misrepresenting survey funding and incentives.

Donald Green, one of the article’s authors, a Columbia University political science professor, made the request for the retraction on May 19, saying that co-author Michael LaCour was never able to come up with the supporting data used in the study.

The magazine issued the retraction after coming up with their own investigation, despite LaCour’s vigorous opposition with the decision.

The retraction mentioned  the cash incentives of survey participants, falsified reports pertaining to the sponsorship of the survey together with the apparent none existent of the original data making it “impossible to verify or alleviate concerns about statistical irregularities.”

“I will supply a definitive response on or before May 29, 2015. I appreciate your patience, as I gather evidence and relevant information,” stated LaCour on his website.

An huge news coverage was attended major news groups which included The New York Times, the Washington Post and The Associated Press, explaining in details a study that that were influenced by gay canvassers. They effective at “dictating” voters’  to support the same-sex marriage in comparison to straight canvassers.

The study has  also expressed that opinion changes were done on the  straight canvassers reports and the results dwindled away in a few weeks time.  The changes being done by the gay canvassers went on even 9 months later.

After the data’s honesty came under fire from two graduate students from the University of California, Berkeley, who attempted  to to do a similar study, Green began to doubt the study as he  wrote just last week that he was  “deeply embarrassed by this turn of events and apologize to the editors, reviewer, and readers of Science.”







  1. Charles S says

    While the reporting in the article is fine, the headline is wildly inaccurate and misleading.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *