While I still believe my hypothesis is true, I make no pretense that this present article is the sort of thing that would appear in a scientific journal. That is, here I�m not trying to prove irrefutably every detail touched on. I�m not saying that every position of mine is rigorously stated, as might be expected in PhD thesis.
On the other hand, I'm writing about things that a PhD candidate might be advised are too contorversial for a thesis topic.
I'm a generalist. I�m trying to provide a non-technical but factual outline of a subject, and to explain why it's important for public health reasons. I welcome and have received feedback from academic specialists. I' ve incorporated quite a number of such responses in my material, giving the specialist credit when the point was either original or phrased interestingly.
You see, unfortunately, there are some grounds for believing that prevailing ideas on college campuses--might sometimes make it hard for researchers to express themselves candidly. Constraint may inhibit discussion of just those sexual issues which should be of greatest concern to students--e.g., oral sex.
While we might here be presuming to supply some of the objectivity that may be missing on campus, we'd also like to avoid moralizing. It's always unwise to moralize about the sexual behavior of other people: sexuality is a difficult issue for almost everyone, and the pious moralizer�s own conduct may itself be called into question.
But there are still legitimate issues left for us regarding (1) scientific facts and (2) the health and the welfare of college students and of the general public.
And my concerns about research objectivity, given the present state of both popular and academic culture, are based on experience.
CONTINUE
Scanned image of 1992 newsletter about immune problems and heterogeneous entities
page 1, top
page 1, bottom
page 2, top
page 2. bottom
Text from 1992 newsletter retyped for easier reading.