Contemporary Modalities: Abstinence Study Statistics

In bolded letters, a pull quote in Sharon Begley’s column titled “Just say No—to Bad Science” from Newsweek May 7, 2007, reads, “No one is saying that researchers cheat, but how they design a study of sex education can practically preordain the results.” Immediately, I thought of Latour’s chapter on modalities in Science in Action. Modalities, in Latour’s terms, are statements which “modify (or qualify) another one,” (22).

Latour describes instances in which facts are distorted by the phrasing of arguments and perspectives. Similarly, Begley criticizes factual distortion. She writes, “Choosing the wrong methodology can lead science, and the public, astray.” Begley went on to criticize a number of studies done on abstinence programs in teens due to the conditions and biases involved.

For instance, Begley wrote, “Many evaluated programs where kids take a virginity pledge. But kids who choose to pledge are arguably different from kids who spurn the idea.” She infers here that the study following those who took a pledge is incomplete because it does not follow all teenage sexual choice. It only looked at the way children who pledged their virginity behaved.

She also attacked a study based on memory and abstinence. She states, “…up to half of kids forget whether they took a virginity pledge, or pretend they never did….Both factors inflate the measured efficacy of pledge programs.”

Depending on the way the information of these studies is presented the studies seem to be more or less effective. Latour uses examples in his text to demonstrate the peculiar means of tinting fact. On page 22, Latour elaborates on this:
“What happens when someone disbelieves a sentence? Let me experiment with three simple cases.
(1) New soviet missiles aimed against Minutemen silos are accurate to 100 metres.
(2) Since [new Soviet missiles are accurate within 100 metres] this means that Minutemen are not safe any more, and this is the main reason why the MX weapon system is necessary.
(3) Advocates of the MX in the Pentagon cleverly leak information contending that [new Soviet missiles are accurate within 100 metres].”

Latour then describes these 3 sentences by stating that (1) is the initial fact, (2) is a positive modality in that it uses (1) to push an idea, and (3) is a negative modality because it refutes (1)’s validity.

In this way, one can set up a code of modalities related to Begley’s article:
(1) Abstinence studies of children who took virginity pledges show that pledges are “effective in reducing early sexual activity.”
(2) Because [abstinence studies of children who took virginity pledges show that pledges are “effective in reducing early sexual activity”] this means that virginity pledges prevent teenage sexual behavior, and this is the reason all children should take virginity pledges.
(3) Conservatives cleverly use [abstinence studies of children who took virginity pledges] to push conservative ideals despite the fact that the studies were incomplete.

Overall, modalities seem to boil facts so that they seem flimsy and plump, unable to stand on their own. Perhaps Begley said it best when she ended her article with the following line: “Authors of the problematic studies say they did the best they could with the time and money they had. OK, but as Trenholm says, “there is such a thing as good science and less good science.” And you can really tell the difference.” In this way, as the American public, we should be wary of science done under motivation. The existence of biased science makes it our duty to sift through the opinion for the fact.


WRITTEN IN REFERENCE TO:
“Just Say No—To Bad Science”
Sharon Begley
Newsweek
May 7, 2007

Science in Action
Bruno Latour
Harvard University Press
Cambridge, Massachusetts
1987