The Academic Exchange Elaborate on the disputes over your gun research.

Professor Arthur Kellermann My early work was designed to answer the question, Is having a loaded gun in your home a good or bad idea? People considering the purchase of a gun for protection should be able to access objective information, rather than base their decision on a bumper sticker. Unfortunately, the NRA didn’t see it that way. They believe that any research that suggests guns may be hazardous is simply softening up people for more gun control. As I said once at a public meeting, I didn’t shoot the victims, I just counted them. That’s where the data come down.

Year in and year out the two most controversial issues in American politics are abortion and gun control. Both of them have their zealots. People who feel this strongly about an issue base their perception of the value of a study on whether or not it supports their point of view. If it does, it’s great stuff. If not, it must be fraudulent.

My critics didn’t really go after me as much as they went after the CDC. They reasoned that if federal funding for firearm injury prevention research was eliminated, the work would grind to a halt. Working through allies in Congress, the NRA was able to severely restrict the CDC’s freedom to sponsor research on this issue. The action sent a clear message to other federal research agencies to stay out of this work. It was a very effective strategy.

Now, every time the CDC publishes a new grant announcement, they must state that none of their funds for injury prevention and control “may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” Since “gun control” is the law of the land, I find this extraordinary. A felon cannot legally purchase a semiautomatic pistol in a gun store. Neither can a fifteen-year-old gang member. Both are manifestations of gun control, but the CDC cannot endorse either strategy.

AE Is the controversy over your work having an effect on the work of others?

AK Very few people are working in this field right now. One reason is it’s very hard to find the funding. The other is that many scholars have concluded that it simply isn’t worth the grief. Because I try to stick with research and leave advocacy on the gun issue to others, I find myself stranded in an awkward middle ground. Clearly, federal agencies are not going to fund fire-arm injury prevention studies. On the other hand, the few foundations interested in the gun issue want advocacy and political action, not more scientific research. Meanwhile, most big foundations are reluctant to fund work in this area because they will be heavily criticized if they do. When a foundation officer tells me they cannot fund my research because I’m “too controversial,” I know the bad guys have won.

AE What can scholars do to debunk inflammatory rhetoric over their work?

AK Not much, for two reasons. First, it is hard for scholars to defend themselves without sounding like their critics. Second, few of us have the time to engage in a never-ending debate. A scholar should ask, Have they really hurt my reputation? In my case, I don’t think anybody I respect in criminology or public health thinks one whit less of me because the NRA doesn’t like my work. So I ignore the criticism and move forward.

What does disappoint me is that the “community of scholars” does not defend its own very well. Several years ago, I encountered a twenty-plus-page attack article in the Tennessee Law Review. I was on the faculty at the University of Tennessee at the time. I could have spent six months rebutting it, but I decided I shouldn’t have to defend myself. Unfortunately, no one with a combined law and public health background stepped up to the plate, so the article appeared without a rebuttal.

Every scholar wants a measure of recognition for his or her work, but my advice is to be careful what you wish for. Scholars are no longer burned at the stake and drawn and quartered like they once were, but it can still get rough. I tell my grad students that they should stay out of the kitchen if they can’t take the heat.

In my experience, public health is a contact sport. Public health researchers frequently deal with controversial topics such as air quality, aids prevention, and gun violence. Many of these topics involve considerable sums of money or engender strong political views. If you’re not willing to deal with criticism and even endure personal attacks, you should stick with less volatile issues. If, however, you can take criticism without giving up, go for it.