"Three Decades of Research:" A New Sex Ed Agenda and the Veneer of Science.

IF 0.5 4区 医学 Q3 LAW
Issues in Law & Medicine Pub Date : 2023-01-01
Irene H Ericksen, Stan E Weed
{"title":"\"Three Decades of Research:\" A New Sex Ed Agenda and the Veneer of Science.","authors":"Irene H Ericksen,&nbsp;Stan E Weed","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The research review, \"Three Decades of Research: The Case for Comprehensive Sex Education,\" by Goldfarb and Lieberman (2021), purports to show \"strong support\" for the effectiveness of school-based comprehensive sex education (CSE) at producing many benefits beyond its original goals of preventing teen pregnancy and STDs. We reviewed the evidence the study cites in support of these claims, item by item, and found that 1) 80% of the sources cited as supporting evidence for CSE are not studies of CSE programs and 2) of the few cited studies of actual CSE programs, roughly 90% do not meet recommended scientific standards for evidence of program effectiveness. Important to note, contrary to its claims, the study does not show scientific evidence that comprehensive sex education helps prevent child sex abuse, reduces dating/intimate partner violence or homophobic bullying, or that it should be taught to young children in the early grades. Rather than making \"the case for CSE,\" Goldfarb and Lieberman's review gives the appearance of scientific support to a new CSE agenda that the authors articulate and endorse, which includes early sex education, gender ideology, and social justice theory. However, they do not present scientifically reliable confirmatory evidence for that agenda.</p>","PeriodicalId":48665,"journal":{"name":"Issues in Law & Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Issues in Law & Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The research review, "Three Decades of Research: The Case for Comprehensive Sex Education," by Goldfarb and Lieberman (2021), purports to show "strong support" for the effectiveness of school-based comprehensive sex education (CSE) at producing many benefits beyond its original goals of preventing teen pregnancy and STDs. We reviewed the evidence the study cites in support of these claims, item by item, and found that 1) 80% of the sources cited as supporting evidence for CSE are not studies of CSE programs and 2) of the few cited studies of actual CSE programs, roughly 90% do not meet recommended scientific standards for evidence of program effectiveness. Important to note, contrary to its claims, the study does not show scientific evidence that comprehensive sex education helps prevent child sex abuse, reduces dating/intimate partner violence or homophobic bullying, or that it should be taught to young children in the early grades. Rather than making "the case for CSE," Goldfarb and Lieberman's review gives the appearance of scientific support to a new CSE agenda that the authors articulate and endorse, which includes early sex education, gender ideology, and social justice theory. However, they do not present scientifically reliable confirmatory evidence for that agenda.

《三十年研究:新的性教育议程和科学的表象》
Goldfarb和Lieberman(2021)的研究综述“三十年的研究:全面性教育的案例”,旨在显示“强烈支持”以学校为基础的全面性教育(CSE)的有效性,它产生了许多好处,超出了它最初的目标,即防止青少年怀孕和性病。我们逐项回顾了该研究引用的支持这些主张的证据,发现1)80%被引用作为CSE支持证据的来源不是CSE项目的研究;2)在少数被引用的实际CSE项目的研究中,大约90%不符合项目有效性证据的推荐科学标准。值得注意的是,与它的主张相反,这项研究并没有提供科学证据来证明全面的性教育有助于防止儿童性虐待,减少约会/亲密伴侣暴力或同性恋欺凌,或者应该在幼儿早期就教授这些知识。Goldfarb和Lieberman的评论并没有“为全性教育辩护”,而是给出了一种科学支持的表象,为作者阐明和认可的一个新的全性教育议程提供了科学支持,其中包括早期性教育、性别意识形态和社会正义理论。然而,它们并没有为这一议程提供科学可靠的确凿证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Issues in Law & Medicine
Issues in Law & Medicine Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Issues in Law & Medicine is a peer reviewed professional journal published semiannually. Founded in 1985, ILM is co-sponsored by the National Legal Center for the Medically Dependent & Disabled, Inc. and the Watson Bowes Research Institute. Issues is devoted to providing technical and informational assistance to attorneys, health care professionals, educators and administrators on legal, medical, and ethical issues arising from health care decisions. Its subscribers include law libraries, medical libraries, university libraries, court libraries, attorneys, physicians, university professors and other scholars, primarily in the U.S. and Canada, but also in Austria, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Italy, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Japan, Russia, South Korea, Spain, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信