To the Editors

The Editors
The New York Times
229 West 43rd St.
New York, New York 10036-3959

To the Editors:

Please use more caution when reporting scientific results that have not been subjected to peer review. If you took greater care in checking that the results you report are scientifically valid, you would not have published an article like “Studies Rebut Earlier Report on Pledges of Virginity” (Lawrence Altman, June 15, 2005). That story gives the appearance of being balanced, because it reports on both a scientific study and its critics. But if you look closer you will see that the studies mentioned in the headline have not undergone peer review. Moreover, they not likely to pass peer review and the authors have no intention of submitting them to peer review. Giving equal time to such a report is no more justified than giving equal time to alleged science put forward by people who believe in UFOs, ESP, intelligent design, or who deny the existence of the Holocaust. Objective science reporting calls for more than “balance”; it requires knowledge of what is good science and what is not.

We urgently need good science reporting on subjects like teenage sexuality and the effectiveness of huge government programs. I hope the Times will continue to uphold its reputation for quality, intelligent journalism, and not just report on any press release by activist groups masquerading as science.

Sincerely

J. Robert Loftis