Opinion ID: 2638169
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The 2002 Tavris Article

Text: In addition to the second part of the Loftus and Guyer article, the July/August 2002 issue of the Skeptical Inquirer contained an accompanying article entitled The High Cost of Skepticism by Carol Tavris (26 Skeptical Inquirer 41; hereafter the Tavris article). [6] In this article, Tavris posits that the power wielded by university institutional review boards (IRB's) stifles scientific inquiry and progress, and threatens the very foundation of the skeptical movement. (Tavris, supra, 26 Skeptical Inquirer at p. 42.) To illustrate her point, Tavris focuses on the authors of the Skeptical Inquirer article summarized above: The story of what happened to Elizabeth Loftus and Mel Guyer when they set out to investigate the case of Jane Doe is itself, Tavris contends, a case study of the high cost of skepticism. (Ibid.) According to the Tavris article, the authors of the Skeptical Inquirer article decided to examine the Jane Doe case and Corwin's alleged evidence of a recovered memory of sexual abuse, because the stakes were high for their work as scholars, teachers, and expert witnesses, because the case was already being used in court as evidence that recovered memories of sexual abuse in childhood are reliable. (Tavris, supra, 26 Skeptical Inquirer at p. 42.) According to this article, Loftus and Guyer were encouraged to pursue their story after finding that documents in the public record were inconsistent with the Child Maltreatment article. The Tavris article describes how Loftus and Guyer were treated by the IRB's at the universities where they were employed. The IRB at the University of Michigan, where Guyer was employed, allegedly took the position initially that its approval for this project was unnecessary, because Guyer would not be doing human subjects research, but then reversed its position a month later, when it disapproved the project and recommended that Guyer be reprimanded. (Tavris, supra, 26 Skeptical Inquirer at p. 42.) Then, several months later, a new chair of the IRB determined that this project was exempt from IRB consideration because it did not involve human subjects research, and found there was no basis for recommending a reprimand. According to the Tavris article, Loftus and Guyer were encouraged by the green light given to Guyer at Michigan and continued their investigation until the University of Washington, where Loftus was employed, received an e-mail from Jane Doe complaining that her privacy was being violated. (Tavris, supra, 26 Skeptical Inquirer at p. 42.) Tavris's article offered the following explanation as to why the University of Washington should have rejected Jane Doe's complaint out of hand: Considering that David Corwin had published his account of her life and was traveling around the country showing videotapes of Jane at six and seventeen, and considering that no one was making her story public (and hence violating her `privacy') except Jane herself and Corwin, this complaint should have been recognized as a cry from a troubled and vulnerable young woman, and set aside. (Id. at pp. 42-43.) Instead, Tavris reports, the investigation conducted by the University of Washington lasted more than 21 months, consisted of a series of shifting `charges against Loftus, often kept secret from her, and was fueled by improper outside influences. These influences included a scathing memorandum drafted by a member of the University of Michigan's IRB who was critical of Guyer, as well as the litigation strategies of opposing counsel in an out-of-state court case in which Loftus was a defense expert and Corwin was a plaintiffs expert. Ultimately, Tavris reports, Loftus was exonerated of charges of scholarly misconduct, and the University of Washington concluded that her investigation of the Jane Doe case did not constitute human subjects research. Even then, however, Loftus's employer, the University of Washington, instructed her not to contact Jane Doe's mother again, or to interview anyone else in the case without advance approval. The Tavris article describes Jane Doe as an unhappy young woman whose life has been filled with conflict and loss. (Tavris, supra, 26 Skeptical Inquirer at p. 43.) It characterizes Corwin as a man who has publicly promoted his case study as a personal vindication and a prototype of how recovered memories should be studied (ibid.) while presenting Loftus and Guyer as heroes whose courage, persistence, and integrity made them `'willing to `offend' in the pursuit of truth and justice. (Ibid.) [End of excerpt from Court of Appeal opinion.]