![\"national](\"https:\/\/files.shootingnewsweekly.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/05114801\/national-homicide-rate-record-low.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
Gun rights supporters know that civilian disarmament advocates have long employed dubious social \u201cscience\u201d\/public \u201chealth\u201d research in their mission to strip Americans of their Second Amendment rights. Worse, these political actors insist that taxpayers fund these attacks.<\/p>\n
Last week,\u00a0NRA-ILA\u00a0pointed to new research<\/a>\u00a0showing that the social \u201csciences\u201d exhibit woeful, and increasing, political bias. Compounding this problem, this week, a large team of researchers published another study showing that roughly half of social \u201cscience\u201d research can\u2019t be replicated. Replication is vital to determining whether a study\u2019s conclusions are in fact valid.<\/p>\n The item is titled\u00a0Investigating the replicability of the social and behavioural sciences<\/em><\/a>, and was published April 1 in the journal\u00a0Nature<\/em>. An article in the journal\u00a0Science<\/em>, titled\u00a0Across the social sciences, half of research doesn\u2019t replicate<\/em><\/a>, summarized the findings.<\/p>\n Describing the replication research project, Science explained.<\/p>\n Called Systematizing Confidence in Open Research and Evidence (SCORE), the effort investigated more than 100 papers published in dozens of leading journals in business, economics, education, political science, psychology, and sociology. The replication success rate\u201449% for the 164 papers evaluated, reported today in Nature\u2014is consistent with findings from previous studies in individual fields such as psychology, suggesting the problem is pervasive in the social sciences.<\/em><\/p>\n Citing a scientist interviewed for the piece, the Science item noted,<\/p>\n Improving repeatability requires reforms in professional evaluations and funding practices to incentivize researchers to prioritize rigor and quality over the quantity of papers they publish, Cobey says. \u201cAnswering the ongoing questions of the credibility of research requires a cultural change in how we conduct research.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n The problems highlighted by this research project will be familiar to those aware of\u00a0a 2015<\/a>\u00a0study published in\u00a0Science<\/em>\u00a0that detailed the results of a four-year effort to improve the accuracy of psychological science. A team of 270 scientists led by University of Virginia Professor Brian Nosek attempted to replicate 98 studies published in some of psychology\u2019s most prestigious journals by conducting 100 attempts at replication. In the end, according to a\u00a0Science<\/em>\u00a0article accompanying the study, \u201conly 39% of the studies could be replicated unambiguously.\u201d The episode, in part, led to what has become known as the\u00a0replication crisis<\/a>.<\/p>\n These problems with social \u201cscience\u201d research won\u2019t come as a surprise to loyal readers of the\u00a0NRA-ILA Grassroots Alert<\/a>.<\/p>\n The dubious incentives are obvious. Today, much of the social \u201cscience\u201d\/public \u201chealth\u201d field is concerned with empowering government to dictate an ever-expanding array of individual behavior, including what people can eat, drink, read, think, drive, and how to protect yourself and your family. The bulk of the project is fundamentally opposed to individual liberty. All the while, Americans are assured that it\u2019s necessary for an ever-growing amount of taxpayer resources to be devoted to public health \u201cexperts\u201d studying and implementing these efforts.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n It doesn\u2019t take a\u00a0public choice<\/a>\u00a0theorist to understand how these incentives work to create a feedback loop. Researchers have an incentive to magnify a supposed problem in hopes of receiving more funding. Politicians seeking further power are eager to fund \u201cresearch\u201d aimed at justifying that accumulation of authority, creating a symbiotic relationship between political actors and so-called \u201cscientists.\u201d<\/p>\n In the gun control context, the problem may be particularly acute.<\/p>\n In 2022,\u00a0Reason<\/em>\u00a0magazine did an excellent job of exposing almost all \u201cgun violence\u201d social \u201cscience\u201d for the junk science it is by producing an\u00a0accessible video explainer<\/a>\u00a0on the topic.<\/p>\n