There is of course always the possibility that if someone in public life can persuade enough people to act on the assumption that his interpretation is valid, he can so influence the character of the future as to make it consistent with his predictions. - Michael Balfour, Propaganda in War, 1939-1945
The great conflict of the 21st century … will be between modern civilization and anti-modernists; between…those who believe in science, reason, and logic and those who believe that truth is revealed through Scripture and religious dogma. - Robert Reich, [Clinton's Secretary of Labor oracle, prophesized in American Prospect on "Bush's God:"]
Having worked for the US Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency under the Reagan administration as Principal Investigator for an $800,000 grant to examine, Images of Children, Crime and Violence in Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler, I was in a unique position to uncover the problem of rotten research and rotten researchers. Another book about that experience is worth writing. For now, notice that no less an authority than US Supreme Court Justice, Stephen Breyer recognizes that, "Law cases can turn almost entirely on an understanding of the underlying technical or scientific subject matter."
Legally, Federal and State Government agencies cannot knowingly finance or use fraudulent scientific data. (We learned a little at least from the American "intellectual" eugenic mania that preceded the scientific horrors of the Nazis in W.W.II. Most Americans are, I think, aware that the belief in a "superior" Aryan race dominated western academic circles until the barbaric scenes of Buchenwald were un-escapable.)
Our nation prohibits the use of data gotten from experiments on people who did not provide informed consent. We also outlawed even non injurious experiments on minors without parental consent. Scholars and institutions producing such data may have their funds terminated and in some cases may even face criminal charges. The research produced by our taxfunded universities can actually be a matter of life and death.
In fact, in 1989 medical researcher Stephen Bruening received a felony conviction for publishing "50 articles based on fraudulent data on the use of psychoactive drugs in mentally retarded patients." Breuning's data impacted public health policy nationally. But Kinsey's data have impacted public sexual conduct and public health - and law-- internationally. Kinsey's lies have globally infected courtrooms, classrooms, bedrooms, church rooms, examining rooms and more recently, boardrooms.
Daniel Koshland, editor of Science claimed that, "You may falsify an important finding, but then it will surely form the basis for subsequent experiments and become exposed" (Science 235:141, 1987). However, Koshland and subsequent editors of Science have made it difficult to do that regarding Kinsey's fraud and sex abuse findings. Despite my correspondence with Science, they have censored from their readers even the existence of books on Kinsey's crimes that are available for review and criticism.
Clearly, the scientists involved in the creation of the Kinsey research findings have become and have trained influential scholars, writers, lecturers, experts on national and international panels and commissions, courtroom witnesses, and academic luminaries in the sexology and sex education fields. That means that all "sexuality" research is under the cloud of deception, of inadvertent or purposeful and ideologically driven fraud. This is especially so when all of the "science" oversight publications censor criticisms of the Kinsey Institute and of its founders criminality.