Nero Fiddled

When I was doing research on abortion facts, one name kept popping up as a source on pro-life websites. Every time a statistic popped up that didn't jive with my other statistics - he was there. Every time I went to a webpage and was confronted with crazy, circular logic, he was there. He was everywhere - studies, book excerpts, quotes, interviews, all claiming scientific proof that abortion is wrong.

His name is Dr. David C. Reardon, PhD and this is his story.

Before I begin, I'm sure you'll want to know under what authority I can tell another man's story. Well, even though Mr. Reardon and I have only written each other a few times and our correspondence ended a few weeks ago, I've read so much of his work and so much about him, I feel I already know him intimately. And how well does David C. Reardon know me? Dr. David C. Reardon, PhD knows all women. Better than they know themselves. He's better than a mind reader. He's a subconscious reader.

Mr. Reardon espouses a common pro-life belief that women who have abortions are usually forced into it and always regret it. If a "post-abortive" woman says she doesn't feel that way, it is because she is burying her true feelings. But luckily, she has Dr. David C. Reardon, PhD to unravel the deep mysteries of the subconscious mind for her.

His studies and books primarily deal with "Post Abortion Syndrome," but his expertise into the female psyche includes the thoughts and feelings of victims of rape, incest, and even, in one case, the secret motivations of Lorena Bobbitt (I added the emphasis to these quotes):

"Unlike pregnancies resulting from rape, most incest pregnancies are actually desired, at least at a subconscious level, in order to expose the incest."

"The [rape] victim may sense, at least at a subconscious level, that if she can get through the pregnancy she will have conquered the rape. By giving birth, she can reclaim some of her lost self-esteem. Giving birth, especially when conception was not desired, is a totally selfless act, a generous act, a display of courage, strength and honor...It is proof that she is better than the rapist. When he was selfish, she can be generous. While he destroyed, she can nurture."

"Lorena felt as though her abortion had left her sexually mutilated and she blamed John for making her have it. That she chose to attack John's sexuality, not his life, indicates that Lorena was subconsciously choosing to retaliate in kind---'an eye for an eye,' so to speak...When fleeing the house, then, she was, on some subconscious level, simply trying to take 'her baby' with her..."

Yes, folks, here he is - David Reardon. He's the one you've all been waiting for. He's the man who can cut through all the gobbledygook coming out of women's mouths and tell us what they're really saying. Lorena Bobbitt carried her husband's severed penis around because she wanted a baby. It's all so simple. This guy is amazing! Intrigued and sparkly-eyed with wonder, I went hunting for more information on this man-who-knows-all-women's-hearts.

In his online biographies, Dr. Reardon is described as:

...a biomedical ethicist, director of the Elliot Institute, and editor of their quarterly publication, The Post-Abortion Review. He is widely recognized as one of the leading experts on the aftereffects of abortion on women, a field in which he has specialized since 1983. He is the author of numerous books and popular and scholarly articles on this topic. His studies have been published in such prestigious medical journals as the British Medical Journal and the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and have proven that abortion compared to childbirth is associated with higher rates of maternal death, subsequent substance abuse, clinical depression, and psychiatric hospitalization.

Now, in 1983, when Reardon apparently began specializing in Post Abortion Syndrome (PAS), he had not yet started the Elliot Institute. The Elliot Institute, by the way, is a tax exempt organization that exists solely for the purpose of funding Reardon's work. There is no "Elliot." According to the institute's website:

"Elliot" was literally picked from a baby names book. The personal name was added with the intention of making the name more personalized, yet formal and a bit stuffy - in an academic way. This was done with the hope to make the Institute's name more "friendly," yet plausible and dignified, for the sake of the recipients of our survey forms.

So, our name is not of any particular significance. We are even willing to change it. So, if you or a rich aunt would like to underwrite our work with a large endowment, we would be glad to change the name to the "Smith Institute", the "Charlie Group," or whatever memorial name you would like! Just let us know.

(In addition to being psychic, Dr. Reardon is also very dignified.)

The first thing that troubled me about Reardon's bio was that when, in 1983, he became "one of the leading experts on the aftereffects of abortion on women," he had not yet written a single book or article on the subject. The only thing he'd had published was a Review of Federal Energy Policy for the Illinois Energy Resources Commission. And he did not have a PhD in biomedical ethics then. He had a degree in electrical engineering from the University of Illinois.

Apparently to Reardon, just as human life begins the second sperm hits egg, human expertise begins the moment one becomes aware of a subject. This is a great realization for me. I'm trying to get a job in some sort of women's rights organization and adding "has specialized in the field of women's health since 1989" to my resume will be a big help. Though really, when I hit puberty I automatically became far more of an expert on women than Reardon will ever be.

The second thing that bothered me about his bio was the whole idea of his PhD in biomedical ethics. Everyone knows he has a PhD. It's in his bio; he's consistently referred to as "Dr." in the pro-life press (and in his own press releases; and when he cites himself in his work, which is often). But it's difficult to find out the details, like where he studied. After several attempts to find this information on his website, and other websites that post and cite his work, I finally found the answer on a pro-choice message board: Reardon earned his degree from Pacific Western University.

I say "earned" because Reardon didn't "attend" PWU. Nor did he "go" to PWU. After reading the brochures, I cannot in good conscience even say he "studied" at PWU. Pacific Western University is an unaccredited on-line university offering Bachelor's, Master's and Doctorate degrees via correspondence courses. According to their website and brochure:

A good candidate for a Doctorate degree program would be someone who needs the qualification to facilitate foreign travel, obtaining a work visa, publish a book or professional articles, join professional associations or to evaluate his or her standing in professional circles, particularly in the consulting field.

I've read this paragraph over and over again and I can only assume they meant to say elevate.

The description of their program continues:

The doctorate is earned by candidates who complete advanced level coursework and demonstrate theoretical competence leading to a dissertation which is the faculty recognized contribution to the literature of the discipline.

Apart from this vague statement and others like it, there is no indication of exactly what one would be studying in order to get a degree at PWU. There are no sample lists of textbooks, no research paper topics (though one is said to be required in each course of study), and absolutely no mention of faculty or advisors at all.

I requested an application and a few weeks later received a two-sided legal-sized document with a space for my name, address, how I learned about PWU ("advertising source"), and the remaining one and a half pages dedicated to tuition and payment information (1/3 of the total tuition plus a $100 application fee now, the remainder according to a payment plan they would set up for me). There was another questionnaire included in my information packet which asked for my social security number, transcripts and other pertinent information, but I was not to complete that one until after I had been accepted. Not only that, when I returned my application I would receive credit for it.

I graduated with a BA in Theatre. It was difficult, but I imagine getting a PhD in biomedical ethics would be far more challenging. Still, I never got credit toward my degree for filling out a form. I can only determine that PWU offers its students a fulfilling opportunity...to buy a fake degree.

Much to my dismay, I also learned that PWU doesn't offer a PhD in biomedical ethics. In fact, it offers nothing like it. It offers no science, medical or ethics courses at all. You can only get a Doctorate degree in one thing: Philosophy of Business Administration.

Even though I don't particularly care for David Reardon (or his moustache), I wasn't ready to call him a liar. So I called the administrative offices of Pacific Western University. Within the course of a 3 minute conversation, I was assigned a faculty advisor and they were already asking for my tuition and resume. Repeatedly. With MUCH PRESSURE. So I decided to end the call before it somehow ruined my credit. Before I did, the woman I spoke with confirmed that PWU did not offer a PhD in biomedical ethics.

So I called The Elliot Institute and asked to speak with David Reardon himself. The woman who answered the phone told me he was at another office, but that I should e-mail him, which I did, and I asked him whether or not he knew PWU was a non-accredited university and was he aware that they did not offer any degrees in the field of biomedical ethics. Apparently, I wasn't the first person who asked him about this, as he sent me "a standard response to questions about my qualifications to suit the particular questions [I] raised."

Since his e-mail to me was several pages long, I won't post it all now (though I do have his permission to do so). You can read the full text here(AUTHOR'S NOTE: This text has been removed as of 6.5.06 in order to omit Mr. Reardon's contact information at his request. I respectfully understand his request and will repost his email response to me as soon as I can).

In his response, Reardon conceded that PWU doesn't offer a PhD in bioethics now, but maintains that they did when he completed his study with them in 1995. He also explained that biomedical ethics was a relatively new field and there was not then, nor is there now, an institution which offers an accredited degree in it.

Well, that's not true. Not only does the Medical College of Wisconsin offer an accredited master's degree in bioethics, it was the first college to offer it online. Loyola University also offers an MA in bioethics. So does Midwestern University in Arizona. So does the University of Minnesota, Albany Medical College, University of Pittsburgh...and more. The first centers for biomedical ethics research appeared to have begun in the United States in the early 80's. Of course, when you get a master's degree, you don't get to call yourself a "doctor."

Reardon went on to say that, regardless of where he got his degree:

The fact that I have been accepted as an expert in my field by the medical and psychological community is demonstrated by the fact that a good number of leading publications have asked me to serve as a peer reviewer for articles in the field submitted by other scholars. The publications for which I have served as a peer reviewer include British Medical Journal, Acta Paediactrica, [Sisk Note: he spelled this wrong, it's really Acta Paediatrica], Medical Science Monitor, Archives of General Psychiatry, Social Science Quarterly.

So I hopped on over to the British Medical Journal to see what I could find. In response to Reardon's paper entitled "Depression and Unintended Pregnancy in Young Women" (co written with JR Cougle), there are four comments.

Robert S. Kahn, Assistant Professor of General Pediatrics at the Children's Hospital Medical Center in Cincinnati, says that the paper "raises at least three concerns." These are that 1) the stated hypothesis is never addressed, 2) the sample size is too small to be used in this study and the third is something I cannot possibly understand (probably because I never filled out enough college applications), but he seems to have a problem with the statistics Reardon cites and his application of them to the women in his study.

Steen Goddik, psychiatry resident at the University of South Dakota School of Medicine says that the article starts with "unwarranted claims" supported by a study that in fact opposes what Reardon is saying (this may have been what Kahn was referring to in point three, above, but I just don't know). He also claims that Reardon and Cougle use "unsubstantiated speculations" to prove their hypothesis.

Deborah L Billings, a senior research associate from North Carolina says that the author's methodology is unsound.

So far, we have three professionals saying that Reardon is manipulating raw data to support unfounded analysis. Plus, he has a small sample size.

Finally, Dallas A. Blanchard, professor emeritus, University of West Florida tells us what we all want to know. "Reardon and Cougle claim no conflict of interest in their paper," she says. "The principal author (Reardon) is a professional anti-abortionist and the funding organisation for which he works has as its primary aim propagandising against abortion."

Well said, Dallas. Well said.

In fact, in an interview with Everlasting Light Ministries, Reardon says:

We believe that understanding how abortion hurts women is the key to ending abortion. Perhaps even more importantly, a deep understanding and empathy for women who have been hurt by abortion will help many of us to become more faithful witnesses of Christ's divine mercy.

The truth is that abortion is simply bad medicine. Nothing good comes from it. God has intertwined the well-being of women and their children in such a way that it is impossible to kill a woman's unborn child without exposing her to grave physical, psychological and spiritual harm..

Right now, on the first page of Reardon's website is a petition to Republicans and Democrats to "1) Oppose coerced abortions, and 2) support post-abortion healing." He says it's up to everyone "Whether or not you have ever been involved in an abortion" (emphasis in original) to sign this petition because "...the views of women who have actually had abortions are systematically been ignored [sic]" (emphasis in original).

A man who has never had an abortion making a plea specifically to others who have never had an abortion to ask a bunch of other (mostly) men who have never had an abortion to get rid of the choice to have an abortion because of the danger to women. Because they can't decide what's best for themselves. It's for their own good. This paternalistic mindset permeates women's politics, but I'm still naively amazed every time I see someone so righteously unashamed of possessing it.

The petition, which will be mailed to both Democratic and Republican leadership, contains some poll numbers that remind me of Noah's "What will you do if Bush gets a third term" choices (I would throw up/I just threw up). For instance, did you know that only 16% of the American public thinks "abortion generally makes women's lives better?" Let me ask you a question. How many of you think catheters generally make men's lives better? No, I'm not comparing abortion to a catheter. But my question is no more absurd or stupid than Reardon's. No one wants a catheter. Well, not many people. No one I know. No one I know I know. The point is, it's a very poorly-phrased poll question. Unless your intent is to skew numbers in a particular direction. Which makes sense given Reardon's obvious pro-life stance.

But David Reardon doesn't think that's fair. In bullets 13 and 14 of his e-mail, he says that "politically motivated critics" of his work "distract their audiences from the clear and evident statistical findings of [his] work by attacking." They do this by 1) claiming he has a conflict of interest because he is a professional anti-abortionist, 2) pointing out that he does not have a PhD from an accredited university and 3) citing "expert panels" who disagree with him.

Let's get this straight, David. You're all for open debate and research and peer-review, as long as no one questions your motives, credentials or whether your opinions are supported by any studies but your own. Wow. Okay. I don't really know how to respond to that.

First of all, as far as I know, no one's really disagreeing with your data (except that your population samples are too small), but with your analysis of that data. When you find a correlation between abortion and substance abuse, it doesn't necessarily mean that having an abortion creates a propensity for substance abuse. There is something called causality and if you don't prove it, all you have is, well...data and a personal opinion. I could sit here and support the argument that my ass is really a chicken using only the bible if I wanted to and tried hard enough. That doesn't mean my ass is really a chicken. Or that anyone should believe it is.

Second, when someone's publicly stated goal is to end abortion and "become more faithful witnesses of Christ's divine mercy," how can we possibly take that person at their "scientific" word? It would be like trusting a report on the psychological causes and effects of homosexuality by Jerry Falwell. I think the Reverend would probably be familiar with the verse in a certain book that talks about the inability to serve two masters. If you're a servant of Christ, everything else comes second. Including science, right David?

Third, panels of experts disagree with your analysis. Not just one panel. Panels. One of these panels was convened by the American Psychological Association and Reagan's Surgeon General C. Everett Koop. So we're not talking about some third-rate, fresh out of correspondence school panel here.

Speaking of which, when you so flamboyantly display a title you received in an online correspondence course, you lose credibility. That's just the way it is in our day and time. Maybe our society isn't yet ready to accept Sally Struthers as a bastion of higher learning. Or maybe it's because people think you wanted the title without the work. Maybe it's because people think you bought that "Dr." before your name to "evaluate" yourself among your peers.

I'm all for online learning. I'd like to take a few classes myself. But I don't think I'd get much respect as an attorney with a degree from Phoenix Online University. And you know what? I wouldn't expect it.

Reardon says that "a discussion of the data is more important, however, than a discussion of [his] or degrees or personal political opinions." When your data is proven flawed or your analysis is unsubstantiated because of incompetence or an extreme personal bias, then no, David. You're wrong. A discussion of your degree, if you want to call it that, and of your willingness to present yourself and your "data" in any way that promotes your moral beliefs is just as important. You are not a scientist. You are an evangelist. You are a lobbyist. Do not expect credibility.

David Reardon may be one of the smartest men in the world for all I know. And in our correspondence, he's been very polite. But he's certainly not objective. Or for that matter, a PhD. He's a guy who wants to end abortion and is doing it by pretending to protect the rights of women. Because women can't choose for themselves. Because he's that kind of a guy. Because he's Dr. David C. Reardon, PhD.

But I have to go now. I'm late for my online figure skating class.

Love,

On June 6, 2006, I received an email from Mr. Reardon asking me to publish the following text at the bottom of this post. His text has not been edited from the original email.

Dear Ms. Sisk,
Your article http://nerofiddled.blogspot.com/2005_07_19_nerofiddled_archive.html is misleading (in many regards, but most especially) when it discusses PWU and accredited programs. I would appreciate it if you would post the paragraphs below as part of the blog on that page.

There are two kinds of accreditation: one is for institutions, the other is for course programs. The Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) gives accreditation to institutions. As noted in my earlier response, PWU was not a CHEA accredited institution in 1995 but it did meet the standards of the states of California and Hawaii for granting doctoral degrees.

The second form of accreditation, for course programs, is not provided by the CHEA but by professional organizations such the American Bar Association, and the Association of American Medical Colleges, and the American Library Association, among many others. These professional associations grant accreditation (a seal of approval) on programs that meet their own standards.

CHEA accredited universities may often offer degrees in programs that do not have the accreditation of a professional association. For example, the prestigious Northwestern University doctoral program in psychology is no longer accredited by the APA. (http://www.apa.org/ed/accreditation/doctoral.html)

In my previous email (posted at http://www.noahdiamond.com/reardon.html) I correctly noted that: “There were no accredited programs for biomedical ethics at any university, at that time, nor, I believe, are there any current accreditation agencies for programs teaching biomedical ethics.” (emphasis added

This statement properly refers to the lack of a professional association of biomedical ethics that has established standards for teaching biomedical ethics and provides oversight or accreditation of courses taught at colleges or universities. I never stated, as you imply for the sake of ridicule, that there were no courses in biomedical ethics available from CHEA accredited universities….only that the courses offered by CHEA accredited universities are not accredited by any professional body of biomedical ethics. As anyone who has attended a CHEA accredited university knows, not every course taught is worthwhile and not every program deserves “accreditation.” Not all non-accredited courses are equal. Indeed, it is arguable that none of them are worthwhile.

Indeed, one of the criticisms of bioethics and biomedical ethics is that while there are a lot of people with degrees and opinions in the field there is no objective, universally accepted standard for determining whose degrees or opinions have more or less value than anyone else’s.
I was quite aware of this conundrum at the time I enrolled in PWU. I therefore saw little added value from pursuing a non-accredited program at a CHEA accredited institution precisely because the course work and source of the degree would carry no more or less weight among those of us engaged in the debates of biomedical ethics.
When it comes to heart surgery, one may rightly want to be sure that the surgeon is board certified (accredited). But when it comes to arguing medical ethics, the merit of one’s matter far more than one’s alma mater.

That I chose to further my education at a non-accredited institution does not undermine the credibility of my work which has been published in peer-reviewed medical journals. Ad hominem attacks on my credentials, motives, and beliefs do not contribute to the evaluation of the facts and evidence published in these journal articles.

Sincerely,

David C. Reardon, Ph.D. (not accredited by the CHEA

P.S. -- I also think it is misleading to suggest that simply because PWU no longer offers a degree in biomedical ethics that it never did and to imply, thereby, that I am a liar. The protracted story of your investigation of PWU is clearly designed to suggest a deception on my part.

By the way, did you see the recent study by Dr. Fergusson, a pro-choice atheist confirming the trend of my research (http://www.afterabortion.info/news/Fergusson.htm) or the subsequent admission by an APA spokesperson that their stand on abortion is based on politics, not evidence of mental health benefits arising from abortion access (http://www.afterabortion.info/news/APA.htm)?

In response to all this I'd like to make clear - I'm not necessarily against attending an unaccredited university, nor do I think that all unaccredited programs are bad. I do continute to maintain that PWU is a front for those who want an easy degree. Admittedly, I have never taken a course from there - only researched the admittance process. If anyone would like to fund my enrollment, I will gladly take a course and tell you all about it. Also, I understand that Mr. Reardon was in several peer reviewed journals, as I wrote in my blog entry. I also understand that every peer review of the article I found (and that is referenced in the blog) was negative.

8:00 AM

Comments

Funny, the women in question don't object to Dr. Reardon.

# posted by GrannyGrump : 7/19/2005 10:06 AM

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

# posted by Sisk : 7/19/2005 10:33 AM

Grump, I can't really comment on your comment because I have absolutely no idea what it means. To which "women in question" do you refer? Women who have had abortions? In that case, then yeah, many of them do "object" to Reardon.

Or do you mean all women? Because I certainly have a problem with him and I am, in fact, a woman.

Sisk, Esq.

# posted by Sisk : 7/19/2005 10:37 AM

not only did i have an abortion many years ago, but i've since then personally met dave, and have read his books. he TOTALLY understands what women are going through. he nails it on the head, without question. i was AMAZED, particularly since, in his past, whether as a boyfriend or husband, there are no 'unplanned pregnancies' in his history. i can only attribute his profound COMPASSION and understanding towards post-abortive women/men as a gift from God. most folks who claim to be 'pro-life' have a weird mix of hate, apathy and/or misunderstanding towards those who've had an abortion. do they show compassion? ahh, no.

i know it must be difficult for you to comprehend that dave really does have concern/compassion for the well-being of women, but it's for real.

- kathy

# posted by Anonymous : 7/19/2005 4:18 PM

kathy,

Mr. Reardon's motivation and compassion are not in question here. I'm sure in his mind he thinks he's doing what's best for women who've had an abortion.

Sisk is quite rightfully challenging the honesty of his claim that he's a doctor of biomedical ethics. What's offensive is not what lies in his heart, but his manipulation of data to arrive at a pre-conceived conclusion. He's trying to support his opinions with "data" to make them look like facts. That's not science.

Whether his opinions jive with most women's experiences or not is beside the point here. To pass himself off as an expert is fraud, a fraud that pro-life groups are happy to perpetrate because it serves their purposes.

# posted by Jeri : 7/19/2005 9:55 PM

I find this man completely cringe-worthy as a scientist. When I did my Master's thesis in psychology, I ended up with a small sample size (sh*t happens), but I was at least man enough to stand before my committee and tell them that my study did have some problems. It just boggles my mind that there are people who actually in this day and age cook or distort their data rather than face up to the results of their research. Truly disheartening.

# posted by Anonymous : 7/21/2005 2:15 AM

Thanks, everyone, for commenting.

Because of some comments I've received here and at another blog (www.afterabortionblog.com), I want to make it very clear that I don't think you have to have a degree in something to possess a valid opinion about that subject. If that were the case, I wouldn't feel qualified to write anything I'd posted here.

There are some who think school is the best thing in the world (me). There are some who think school is a tool of the devil (someone who shall remain nameless but his initials are Noah Diamond). Whatever your feelings on degrees, school, education, teachers, etc., it's pretty clear that there are very smart, very talented people out there who deserve credibility whether they formally studied within a field or not.

If you have a strong argument and data to support that argument, you do not need to pretend to be an expert. Let the data speak for itself. I find it hard to believe anything coming from someone who misrepresents the most basic facts about who he or she really is.

To Kathy and Jeri's points, I'm sure David Reardon is sincere in his motives. However, I do not feel his motives are to act in the best interests of women. I believe he acts in what he thinks are the best interests of promoting his brand of Christianity. He may believe that ending abortion will save souls, but I don't think his primary interest really rests in helping women. This is, of course, my personal opinion based on the research I've done on him. I have never met the man, and like I said, in his e-mails he was very polite. But it is clear to me his "fight" is not about protecting women, but promoting morality.

I'm very glad you wrote though, Kathy. It is always nice when someone reminds me that people with opposing viewpoints do not automatically have to be combative with one another and can exchange thoughts with one another in a sincere, respectful way. Thank you for helping me remember that.

Love,
Sisk

# posted by Sisk : 7/22/2005 12:57 PM

Sorry, the web address above should be www.afterabortion.blogspot.com.

Sisk

# posted by Sisk : 7/22/2005 12:58 PM

I don't think school is "a tool of the devil!" People who know me personally have heard me complain about formal education a lot, but this is because I didn't like school. I wish it had been a better experience for me, and I wish it were a better experience for everyone. I think school fails more than it succeeds, if its goal is to educate and enlighten; that's why I think we should devote to public education the same amount of resources we devote to, say, the military. I just felt that I got a much better education by virtue of my own curiosity, and in my own time, than I did sitting in those classrooms memorizing things. For more on this, see my May 30 entry.

# posted by Noah : 7/22/2005 4:19 PM

Why is it that so many women want to deny the cost of abortion to our society and to women in general? I have personally experienced more than one abortion and the aftereffects were devastating in my life. Where are all of the women's groups that purpose to care about me and my health when I want the right to share my story and be heard? I feel that at least Dr Reardon is honest in his agenda. How about the other feminist groups that hide the truth of abortion? Abortion is the most under regulated medical field in this country and there is no ourcry about the devastation that this "medical procedure" often brings? Where is your concern for those wounded by the very lucrative abortion industry?

# posted by suzette : 10/10/2005 12:23 PM

I am a woman. I have had an abortion. I have a master's degreee from a real university. Ergo, I really am an expert in my field and here's my expert analysis: I wouldn't cross the street to spit on David Reardon if his hair was on fire. You might consider not further contributing to his credibility by refering to him as "pro-life", but instead "anti-choice" or anti-abortion" or "anti-women", etc. Cause he sure ain't pro-mylife.

# posted by Anonymous : 12/16/2005 2:13 PM

To see the State of Hawaii Office of Consumer Protection complaint against Pacific Western University see: http://www.hawaii.gov/dcca/areas/ocp/udgi/lawsuits/pwuh/pacwest_first_amended_complt.pdf

Dated September 15, 2005

To see that Pacific Western University is dissolved as a Hawaii business see: http://hbe.ehawaii.gov/cogs/details.html?t=MSTR&fn=71582+D1

Dissolved May 11, 2006 under the name American Pacwest International University. (Name change from Pacific Western University, May 2, 2005).

# posted by Anonymous : 7/04/2006 7:49 PM

For women (and males) to choose for themselves, they first should have had their own birth. Who custodies that they have had such an option?

# posted by Anonymous : 2/09/2007 12:18 PM

There appear to be two issues here. (1) the quality, if any, of Reardon's credentials -- the PWU degree and (2) the quality of his published research.

Sisk's article is entirely directed the the first question and makes some good points regarding the credibility of degrees given by non-accredited -- though state licensed -- educational bodies. Reardon's Ph.D. may be a worthless measure of his expertise and training.

On the other hand, having a Ph.D. from Oxford or Harvard is no guarantee that one's work is good nor that one's views are right. Indeed, in many European academic journals (and I have published papers in several) one's degree is never published precisely to avoid giving credence to the degree rather than the material presented. In other words, the material should be judged on it's own merits, not on the authors' degrees.

Indeed, most peer reviewed journals hide the identity of the authors from reviewers precisely so the material will be judged on its merits, not the reputation or degree of the author(s). Subsequently, while somewhat rare, it is not that uncommon for peer reviewed medical and academic journal articles to include authors who have no advanced degrees. If given the opportunity and direction, bachelor degree candidates with, for example, a lab position will not infrequently be included as co-authors a journal article.

Which brings us back to point 2:, the quality of Reardon's research. Other than a passing remark by Sisk that Reardon's findings differ from those of others she has read, neither Sisk nor the other commentors have detailed any fraud or misrepresentation of data...though many commentors have crudely asserted that his findings are necessarily despicable because his political views are despicable.

Having reviewed some of his peer reviewed studies...all of which include co-authors including at least many who are professors at accredited universities...it seems clear that these studies and findings were accepted and published--after proper peer review--precisely because the findings were credible and a contribution to scientific knowledge.

That is not to say that they are without any methodological limitations. Every study has limitations. And especially in this field, it is impossible to undertake the "perfect controlled study" which would require forced impregnantion of a random sample of women, half of whom would be required to carry to term and half of whome would be required to have an abortion.

Until such a study is done (which thankfully, will never happen), Reardon and his colleagues on one side and pro-choice researchers on the other will have plenty of room for criticizing each others methods and conclusions.

Sisk appears to conclude while Reardon is clearly very bright, sincere, and compassionate that his use of the title Ph.D., obtained from a non-accredited program, is deceptive and lends too much credibility to his findings.

I'd suggest, then, that the best policy in regard to this -- and all research and policy arguments -- is to simply ignore the real or claimed academic credentials and evaluate the arguments and data on their own merits. That's what science is supposed to be about, facts not credentials. And that's also how editors and reviewers of academic journals evaluate the research of Reardon and others.

When pro-choice advocates focus on attacking Reardon's credentials and make this the basis for dismissing his findings, they are taking a very weak position. It is far more convincing to ignore his credentials and simply point out (1) the limitations of his research and (2) the strength of research demonstrating the benefits of abortion.

-- Jamie

# posted by Anonymous : 5/17/2007 9:48 AM

Sisk addresses the issues with quality of research. Check the part of the post dealing with BMJ comments. Failure to address the hypothesis is what you'd call a serious problem. Small sample size is a common problem, but it's no less a problem for being common.

When a man lies or dissembles about his credentials, it throws the credibility of everything else he says into question. This is why people get fired for lying on their resumes, and why MIT's Dean of Admissions was recently fired, despite her having done a pretty good job for 20 years. It's why Hwang will never be able to publish again without someone looking over his shoulder and verifying.

I also question the sincerity of someone who's willing to be dishonest in order to plaster "PhD" onto his name, calls himself an institute, and watches (sorry) obscure blogs this closely in order to defend his PhDness. No, I'm guessing that if you had that late-night cognac with Dave in front of the fire, a 19th-c gleam would come into his eye, the compassion for women would melt, and there'd be a hard little kernel about the right order of things, and the beauty of it. And the nobility involved in doing what was necessary to preserve it. It'd be a right H.G. Wells piece.

Anyway. Integrity actually turns out to be important sometimes, and one of those times is when you're peddling your research.

# posted by Anonymous : 10/28/2007 2:30 PM

have a BS degree in History from St. Joseph's Univ, in Philadelphia, a fine Jesuit university.

I obtained my MA and Ph.D degree from Pacific western in History in 1983. True, there is no campus, but I had to submit transcripts and received credit for lectures & talks I gave on History.

I did have to write a complete doctoral dissertation, & did have an advisor.

I'm aware PWU is not accredited, but, I wanted the Ph.D degree for my writing.

I did not "buy" the degree, in the sense that I did no work. Again it took me about one year to complete the Ph.D. Thanks- Christian Ph.D

# posted by George : 11/08/2008 11:34 PM

I would only be too happy to earn a masters degree in health psychology or any in this related field at this time. How do I go about this?
How do I start?

# posted by Anonymous : 11/11/2008 8:26 PM

Post a Comment

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

My New Friend, Dave