October 2, 2013

why is there so little scientific research about porn?

This is a blogpost by Robin Bisson, Science Information Officer at the SMC. A slightly shorter version of this was originally published on Indy Voices on Monday 30th October.

Online pornography has appeared in the 2013 news agenda like an invasive internet popup. That child killers Mark Bridger and Stuart Hazell both accessed pornography was regularly mentioned during their trials, while David Cameron has called on Internet Service Providers to have default porn filters in place by the end of 2014. The media has been awash with shrill cries to purge the web of smut, and liberal agonising over how to balance people’s freedom to watch what they want with the potentially detrimental effects of unprecedented access to explicit imagery.

There does appear to be cause for concern about the effect on young people, as highlighted by a report by forensic psychologists at Middlesex University which brought into focus the extent to which porn permeates their lives. But with public fear around such a highly moralised subject there is a real danger of the debate being dominated by the loudest voices with the evidence either being ignored or worse misrepresented to bolster arguments by both sides.

At arm’s length from ideological battlegrounds, scientific evidence is a good place to find answers to whether online porn is harming developing minds. Unfortunately the message from scientists at a recent Science Media Centre press briefing was clear: we simply don’t have enough evidence to answer many questions, and much of the evidence that does exist is inconclusive. We do know watching porn can effect attitudes about sex and gender amongst young people; we also know there is a correlation between exposure to porn and risky sexual behaviour but it is unclear whether one causes the other; and there is no evidence about the long-term effects of frequent exposure to porn in adolescence.

For a subject of such acute public concern the dearth of evidence is startling, especially when compared to the rich literature on factors like smoking, drug use or diet. This could be down to how recent the explosion in online porn has been; for those of parental age whose youth didn’t overlap with the ‘porn singularity’ the reality of growing up with the immediate access their children have is alien, and could explain why the issue is such a flashpoint.

Yet exposure to explicit imagery has been a legitimate field of study since before broadband internet and if the past 15 years has transformed the sexual saturation of young people’s lives, why is there still so little research? Across the UK’s top universities there are only a handful of psychologists, neuroscientists and public health researchers for whom pornography has featured tangentially in their studies. Many of those writing grant proposals are told that unless an effective intervention can be found the money won’t come. With the field still at a descriptive phase – we don’t even know much detail of what teenagers are exposed to – effective interventions aren’t just round the corner. The future isn’t bright for porn research at a time when we need it more than ever.

Despite the lack of evidence, public concern demands that politicians be seen to act. Current government policies to introduce opt-out porn filters seem to take their cue from media campaigns and the agitations of lobbyists rather than the evidence or messages of non-partisan experts. Speakers at the SMC briefing suggested filters were a distraction from the real issue, and mandatory sex education which takes into account internet pornography would be the most effective way to counteract the negative attitudes porn engenders and teach young people the difference between pornographic fantasy and real-life sex.

This is not to say that evidence and expertise should be all that matters. After all, teasing out measurable impacts on behaviour through scientific studies could be nigh on impossible, let alone ethical, and it is important to weigh up differing values in deciding what is acceptable for young people to access. But nor should the fact that the science only plays one part in the debate excuse unsubstantiated claims being stated as fact. When Melanie Phillips writes “people have claimed there is no evidence that pornographic images have any effect on behaviour… common-sense would suggest, however, that at least some measure of cause and effect is involved” she misses the point that common sense can only be a starting point from which the evidence can prove you right or wrong. People have made equally reasonable hypotheses that the availability of online porn may help explain falling rates of violent sex crimes. We don’t have to wait for the science before making decisions about what young people can access. Surely we should wait for the science to prove hypotheses about what impact that access has.

Crucially, the modest amount of scientific research that exists should not be overinterpreted to back up pre-existing positions. All too often preliminary research is used to make claims that go way beyond what the study shows. Findings that compulsive porn users show similar brain activity to those with other addictions, presented in a Channel 4 documentary ‘Porn on the brain’, has been used as a jumping off point for comment pieces suggesting “Porn is making addicts of our sons”. It is telling that the line taken by scientists involved in the programme is far more tempered that that of any other commentator.

Both ignoring and distorting the importance of scientific evidence dangerously devalues it and makes it harder to produce a clear picture of the situation. In the end this only does a disservice to the young people we are so keen to protect.

This blog contains the thoughts of the author rather than representing the work or policy of the Science Media Centre.