N.R.A. Stymies Firearms Research, Scientists Say
By MICHAEL LUO
In the wake of the shootings in Tucson, the familiar questions inevitably resurfaced: Are communities where more people carry guns safer or less safe? Does the availability of high-capacity magazines increase deaths? Do more rigorous background checks make a difference?
The reality is that even these and other basic questions cannot be fully answered, because not enough research has been done. And theres a reason for that. Both scientists in the field and former officials with the government agency that used to finance the great bulk of this research say the influence of the National Rife Association has all but choked off funds for such work.
Weve been stopped from answering the basic questions, said Mark Rosenberg, former director of the National Center for Injury Control and Prevention, part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which was for about a decade the leading source of financing for firearms research.
Chris Cox, the N.R.A.s chief lobbyist, said the group had not tried to squelch genuine scientific inquiries, just politically slanted ones. Our concern is not with legitimate medical science, he said. Our concern is they were promoting the idea that gun ownership was a disease that needed to be eradicated.
The amount of money available today for studying the impact of firearms is a fraction of what it was in the mid-1990s, and the number of scientists toiling in the field has dwindled to just a handful as a result, according to researchers.
The dearth of money can be traced in large measure to a clash between public health scientists and the N.R.A. in the mid-1990s. At the time, Dr. Rosenberg and others at the C.D.C. were becoming increasingly assertive about the importance of studying guns as a public health phenomenon, financing studies that found, for example, having a gun in the house, rather than conferring protection, significantly increased the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.
Alarmed, the N.R.A. and its allies on Capitol Hill fought back. The injury center was guilty of putting out papers that were really political opinion masquerading as medical science, said Mr. Cox, who also worked on this issue for the N.R.A. more than a decade ago.
Initially, pro-gun lawmakers sought to eliminate the injury center completely, arguing its work was redundant and reflected a political agenda. When that failed, they turned to the appropriations process. In 1996, Representative Jay Dickey, Republican of Arkansas, succeeded in pushing through an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the C.D.C. budget, the very amount it had spent on firearms-related research the year before.
Its really simple with me, Mr. Dickey, 71, now retired, said in a telephone interview. We have the right to bear arms because of the threat of government taking over the freedoms that we have.
The Senate later restored the money but designated it for research on traumatic brain injury. Language was also inserted into the C.D.C.s appropriations bill that remains in place today: None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.
The prohibition is striking, firearms researchers say, because there are already regulations that bar the use of C.D.C. money for lobbying for or against legislation. No other field of inquiry is singled out in this way.
In the end, researchers said, even though it is murky what exactly is allowed under this provision and what is not, the upshot is clear inside the C.D.C.: the agency should tread in this area only at its own peril.
They had a near-death experience, said Dr. Arthur Kellermann, whose study on the dangers of guns in the home became a focal point of attack by the N.R.A.
In the years since, the C.D.C. has been exceedingly wary of financing research focused on firearms. In its annual requests for proposals, for example, firearms research has been notably absent. Gail Hayes, spokeswoman for the C.D.C., confirmed that since 1996, while the agency has issued requests for proposals that include the study of violence, which may include gun violence, it has not sent out any specifically on firearms.
For policy to be effective, it needs to be based on evidence, said Dr. Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis, who had his C.D.C. funding cut in 1996. The National Rifle Association and its allies in Congress have largely succeeded in choking off the development of evidence upon which that policy could be based.
Private foundations initially stepped into the breach, but their attention tends to wax and wane, researchers said. They are also much more interested in work that leads to immediate results and less willing to finance basic epidemiological research that scientists say is necessary to establishing a foundation of knowledge about the connection between guns and violence, or the lack thereof.
The National Institute of Justice, part of the Justice Department, also used to finance firearms research, researchers said, but that money has also petered out in recent years.
Stephen Teret, founding director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, estimated that the amount of money available for firearms research was a quarter of what it used to be. With so much uncertainty about funding, he said, the circle of academics who study the phenomenon has fallen off significantly.
There are far, far fewer researchers working on the problem," he said. And, therefore, our knowledge about all aspects of guns and public health has not expanded at the pace that one would hope."
After the agencys clash with the N.R.A., Mr. Teret said he was asked by C.D.C. officials to curtail some things I was saying about guns and gun policy.
Mr. Teret objected, saying his public comments about gun policy did not come while he was on the C.D.C. meter. After Mr. Teret threatened to file a lawsuit against the agency, he said the officials backed down and gave him a little bit more leeway.
Funding for research on gun violence by the C.D.C. has not stopped completely, but it is now mostly limited to work in which firearms is only a component.
The C.D.C. also asks researchers it funds to give the agency a heads-up anytime they are publishing studies that have anything to do with firearms. The agency, in turn, relays this information to the N.R.A. as a courtesy, said Thomas Skinner, a spokesman for the agency.
Invariably, researchers said, whenever their work touches upon firearms, the agency becomes squeamish. In the end, they said, it is often simply easier to avoid the topic if they want to continue to be in the agencys good graces.
Dr. Stephen Hargarten, professor and chairman of emergency medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin, used to direct a research center, financed by the C.D.C., that focused on gun violence, but he has now shifted his attention to other issues.
You cant legitimately pursues a long-term research agenda to really understand a particular problem unless you have ongoing, stable research-dollar support, he said. So with the questions that are being raised by this latest tragedy, theres no clear research funding that would help answer those vexing questions that have been raised.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
