RE: shaken baby syndrome

["Thomas R. Chibucos" <tchibuc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

see caps

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu
[mailto:owner-CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu]On Behalf Of
Michelle Kessler
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 4:55 PM
To: Child Maltreatment Researchers
Subject: shaken baby syndrome



A pediatric neurosurgeon named Dr. Uscinski has been making statements and
testifying in court that until Shaken Baby Syndrome can be "proven in a
laboratory setting" he believes that there is no "research basis" for this
syndrome.  It seems to me in reading some of the literature around SBS the
consensus is rather solid on the existence of this problem.  Also, the fact
that the APA believes strongly in prevention in this area seems to support a
sound medical basis for this syndrome.  My questions to the list then, are:


1) Does the research on shaken baby syndrome provide strong evidence for the
reality of this syndrome?

YES, CLEARLY.

2) Since the ability to provide research in "laboratory setting" is
impossible, does this make the current research base any less valid?

AS A GENERAL PROPOSITION RESEARCH IN 'NATURAL SETTINGS' DOES MAKE CAUSALITY
MORE PROBLEMATIC AS THERE ARE ALWAYS NUMEROUS CONFOUNDING VARIABLES (I.E.,
VARIABLES THAT ARE POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS IN ADDITION TO THE VARIABLE OF
INTEREST).  THERE ARE OFTEN MANY IN 'LABORATORY' RESEARCH TOO--USUALLY THESE
RESULT FROM ERRORS IN PROCEDURE OR PROCESS, OR FRAUD--ALTHOUGH LABORATORY
EXPERIMENTATION DOES ALLOW THE MOST DIRECT CONTROL OF (MORE LIMITED)
VARIABLES OF INTEREST.

BUT, IN MANY AREAS OF RESEARCH THE 'WEIGHT' OF THE EVIDENCE GATHERED ACROSS
MANY SETTINGS, POPULATIONS, ETC. ALLOWS REASONABLE CONCLUSIONS ABOUT
CAUSALITY--E.G., RESEARCH ON THE EFFECTS OF TOBACCO, RESEARCH ON THE EFFECTS
OF IMPOSING OF LOWERED HIGH WAY SPEED LIMITS, EPIDEMIOLOGICAL RESEARCH, ETC.
THIS IS THE CASE IN SBS.

I KNOW NOTHING OF THE DR. YOU MENTION, HOWEVER, IF THE STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED
TO THE DR. IS TRUE (THAT UNTIL SBS CAN BE "PROVEN IN A LABORATORY SETTING"),
IT BELIES A MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE LOGIC OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH.  ONE
DOESN'T "PROVE" ANYTHING IN RESEARCH; ONE SIMPLY DECREASES THE LIKELIHOOD OF
ALTERNATIVE REASONABLE EXPLANATIONS.

I HOPE THIS HELPS PROVIDE SOME PERSPECTIVE.

I appreciate your answers to these questions.

Thanks,
Michelle