A medical librarian, who ran a typical search on POPLINE, (the world’s largest database on reproductive health) found something very disturbing. The term “abortion” had been pretty much blocked from its database for normal searches . Go here and try the search. I did and got “No records found by latest query.”
the world’s largest database on reproductive health, containing citations with abstracts to scientific articles, reports, books, and unpublished reports in the field of population, family planning, and related health issues. POPLINE is maintained by the INFO Project at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health/Center for Communication Programs and is funded by the United States Agency for International Development. (USAID).
I was contacted yesterday by someone and given this email thread. Here’s what he/she said in the email:
The e-mail exchange below is fairly straight-forward: a governmental database on Population, POPLINE (POPulation OnLINE) has been changed so that one can no longer search the term “abortion.” As the representative from POPLINE states, “As a federally funded project, we decided this was best for now.”
I suspect pressure was placed from on high to do this. Why would the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University, where POPLINE is hosted, decide on its own to eliminate searching for information on abortion? I hope you can publicize this outrageous maneuver.
Here’s the email conversation that was posted here. It’s quite troubling. Names were edited for confidentiality!
To: Debra L. Dickson
POPLINE Database Manager/Administrator
INFO Project
111 Market Place, Suite 310, Baltimore, MD 21202
ddickson@jhuccp.org
Tel: 410-659-6300 / Fax: 410-659-6266
Hi Debbie –
Thank you for your quick response to my e-mail. I have forwarded your e-mail to researchers with whom I am working; I suspect they will be as puzzled as I about the decision to make “all abortion terms stop words” in the government funded, publically available “POPLINE” database. Even more troubling is the implications for the average user – eliminating this term essentially blocks access to the reports in the database and ultimately to information about abortion. “Unwanted w2 pregnancy” is not a synonym for abortion.
My colleague and I are also forwarding this e-mail to several organizations whose members are primarily medical librarians. We suspect they will also be puzzled by the notion that a perfectly good noun such as “abortion” should for no apparent reason be classified as a “stop word” and equated with “a”, “an”, “the”.
A better explanation is deserved – the explanation should also be posted on the website for all users to know, e.g., “The POPLINE database producers have decided to ignore “abortion” as a searchable to term because ……. ?
We look forward to a better explanation for why this term has been eliminated; all of the users of POPLINE deserve to know.
Regards,
Researcher
From: Dickson, Debbie L. [mailto:ddickson@jhuccp.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 7:26 AM
To: researcher name removed
Subject: RE: Popline retrieval discrepancy
Hi researcher,
Yes we did make a change in POPLINE. We recently made all abortion terms stop words. As a federally funded project, we decided this was best for now. In addition to the terms you’re already using, you could try using ‘Fertility Control, Postconception’. This is the broader term to our ‘Abortion’ terms and most records have both in the keyword fields. Also, adding ‘unwanted w2 pregnancy’ in place of aborti*. We have a keyword Pregnancy, Unwanted and there are 2517 records with aborti* & unwanted w2 pregnancy
I hope this helps.
Debbie
From: researcher name removed
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 3:51 PM
To: Dickson, Debbie L.
Subject: RE: Popline retrieval discrepancy
Hello Debbie:
I left a message on your voice mail today regarding POPLINE, but didn’t explain the problem I’m encountering, so here is an email follow-up.
When I ran this strategy on Jan 18, 2008, POPLINE retrieved 1684 refs; when I re-ran the same strategy today, POPLINE retrieved fewer refs, ie, 1478 refs. Usually, when a search is re-run at a later date, the total number of references retrieved is more, not less. Has POPLINE undergone some major change in the past few months that might explain the decreased retrieval? What can account for this discrepancy?
(strategy removed)
I also tested a second strategy that was developed in Jan 2008 and had similar results, ie, fewer refs retrieved this time than previous. Puzzling?!?
Appreciate a prompt response –
Thank you, researcher.
Ms. Dickson may be contacted at:
Debra L. Dickson
POPLINE Database Manager/Administrator
INFO Project
111 Market Place, Suite 310, Baltimore, MD 21202
ddickson@jhuccp.org
Tel: 410-659-6300 / Fax: 410-659-6266
Women’s Health News did a little digging and says: “Why is a Government-Funded Reproductive Health Database Blocking Users from Searching for Abortion Articles?
Now, a little digging reveals that the POPLINE folks haven’t actually removed the term “abortion” (or related ones) as subject terms from the citations, or from their Thesaurus which tells you which subjects appear in the database. If you know to use the “Browse Index”* you can still find the term and come up with almost 25,000 results. However, if you simply enter the word “abortion” in the Subject search box, as the instructions directly above the box suggest you should be able to do, the search returns 0 results. Another work-around is to enter the search as =”Abortion” as the Index search would do, and you can still get the results. Of course, that applies for now, until they realize that the work-around is there and remove it as well.
Right now, this move is essentially a barrier to your basic search/er - an advanced searcher might get 25,000 results, while someone just following directions will get none. As the librarian reporting the problem noted, “It is important to remember that this database is used by both professional searchers and the public. The average user goes directly to the query box and searches; they will retrieve nothing when the term “abortion” is entered.” She also notes that using the advanced options was *not* among the suggestions from POPLINE personnel in response to her inquiry...read on
Medical librarian blogs are now actively picking up on this:
Sure, you can search for “unwanted pregnancy” or, (as the representative from the database suggests) “Fertility Control, Postconception,” but these are not the terms people use. A good search engine is responsive to both vernacular and specialized terms, providing results that allow the user to learn the more specialized terms as their research progresses. Now, to use POPLINE, you have to know in advance.
Turning to their handy “Keyword Guide” won’t help you either, because Abortion, Abortion Law, and Abortion Rate are all still misleadingly listed as keywords.
Filed Under: Abortion, Civil Liberties, Scandals
Tags: Scandals
No Trackbacks To “POPLINE restricts the word ‘Abortion’ from the government funded database“
What is going through the machine they replaced their brain with?
They’ve restricted the word ‘Abortion’?
What are they going to restrict next the words murder? penis? vagina? anus?
Maybe women who want an abortion can throw the crazies for a loop by saying, “I am looking for some postconception fertility control.”
No offense to anyone meant by this except for the so-called “pro-lifers”.
.
They also blocked the terms “coat hanger”
& “Hungry rat on a string” & “stem cel”
I miss Randi Rhodes….Edited….JA
CD @ 2:
Well, remember the uproar over the word ’scrotum’ in a kid’s book. I’m sure naughty, dirty and filthy words like ‘penis’ and ‘vagina’ are going to be purged too.
cg @ 1:
I don’t know but I once overheard a couple in a store complaining about a PC they were returning because they thought it was supposed to do everything for them.
I’m not making that up.
Ever since George Jr survived 3 attempted abortions…
CD @ 2:
THAT is an interesting string of words… tell me how you feel about your mother;)
What do you make of a society that is so primitive that it clings to the belief that certain words in its language are so powerful that they could corrupt you the moment you see or hear them?
More Gestapo tactics from the Bush regime.
I know, I shouldn’t insult the Gestapo like that.
Just one more step towards a dangerous theocracy in America. In a few years, non-Christians, and other “deviants” will be stripped of all rights. I’m telling you, it’s coming. Germany in the 1930’s all over again.
more at my blog…
Try
*abortion*
,Dave
I wonder if you search for:
A cap full of bleech
or
A shot of Mountain Dew
What you’d come up with…
BennyP @ 8:
[Deleted,Abusive.Site Monitor]
jdw @ 10:
*knock knock*
“Who’s there?”
“The Gestapo.”
“The Gestapo who?”
“I’LL ASK ZE QUESTIONS!”
stenz @ 5:
That’s the thing though the person who ran the search was a medical librarian! if they’re not qualified to read information on that topic our society is starting on a swift trip back to the days when doctors had to steal bodies to study the human body.
CD @ 2:
Torture , spying on citizens, unnecessary war …etc.
jdw @ 10:
There are better ways to insult GWB than bestowing a favourable comparison on the Gestapo.
These last few years, I have felt as if I have been living in Bizzaro-World. Someone please wake me up in January 2009.
Terry740 @ 17:
Bill of Rights……
I think they mean POPELINE. That would make more sense.
CD @ 2:
only when used on a crossword puzzle being done by bush, the concepts are
way above him. it’s a miracle that w was able to put his “p” it in a “v” and not an “a”
we know he gets confused on his jd.
[Deleted, Pick a name and stick with it. Site Monitor.]
CD @ 16:
All the good ones are being used for genetic engineering.
Here we go … more ‘oh, arent they dumb’ responses, or they are incompetent.
This is what they have wanted to do for the last 40 years, and now they are doing it. This isnt a ‘mistake’ or ‘dumb’ it is their core. Remember, they dont really believe in ’science’ - not because they are dumb.
They live in a world of absolutes. They will NEVER compromise. They will have their way and they will have you if they are not stopped. If they are stopped … then it will be ‘next time’.
See them for what they are. They really are monsters - that see YOU as a monster. Do you see the dilema here? Whether you want to accept it or not … you are at war with this type of mind - fundamentalist mind. Whether it is a moslem or christian fundamentalist mind is of little importance really. Either will cut off your head while praising god.
Also, you need to understand that there is an iceberg principle at work here. We are only aware of a VERY small percentage of the mischief these people have been up to.
Personally, I would expect them to claim an end to democracy to be in gods best interest - now that ‘god’ has power. This is a real risk.
If you search for ‘abstinence‘ you get:
Your search found 3940 record(s).
No one will read this …. but consider the amount of information that is ’secret’ that is held by the government - dating back to the very founding of the country. Consider what could be done by these people by removing or modifying this information.
After this administration, it is possible that real history will be unknowable. I cant imagine real information regarding Bush I or Iran Contra for example surviving.
I enterd my query, and used the jave script inmagic window to past in my query, and recieved 32566 records with titles such as
Bankole A; Sedgh G; Oye-Adeniran BA; Adewole IF; Hussain R. Abortion-seeking behaviour among Nigerian women. Journal of Biosocial Science. 2008 Mar; 40 (2) :247-268.
Bautista CT; Mejía A; Leal L; Ayala C; Sanchez JL. Prevalence of lifetime abortion and methods of contraception among female sex workers in Bogota, Colombia. Contraception. 2008; 77 (3) :209-213.
10. 325186 [View full record]
Jones RK; Zolna MR; Henshaw SK; Finer LB. Abortion in the United States: Incidence and access to services, 2005. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. 2008 Mar; 40 (1) :6-16.
12. 324310 [View full record]
Lindau ST; Tetteh AS; Kasza K; Gilliam M. What schools teach our patients about sex: Content, quality, and influences on sex education. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2008 Feb; 111 (2 Pt 1) :256-266.
did I do something different in my query than anybody else???
again, I entered a term, than chosed browse index, then I pasted a term programmed into the query, then submitted it.
Perhaps the query method is not intuitive like google, and requires those steps before getting the result..
Ron @ 24:
But even the lowed medical librarian is more than qualified to read such words.
(I can’t believe I wrote that sentence)
now if I can only learn to spell….
The medical term for a “miscarriage” is “abortion” (e.g., spontaneous abortion) so the blockage would cause some problems.
Pazuzu’s Petals @ 18:
Like this, for instance:
www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04.....94601.html
anon @ 27:
I read that and have felt that way for a while.
The past 8 years have crushed my faith in childish notions of truth and justice.
I looked for patriarchy, homophobia and reproductive choice and found ‘em all. I guess we better hurry and get all the information before we can.
search ‘therapeutic abortion’ or ’spontaneous abortion’ and you’ll get plenty of hits.
dothehop @ 3:
They are not pro life. They are anti-choice. Let’s call a duck a duck.
I am a retired university librarian. As a high school student in Ferndale, Michigan (a suburb outside of Detroit), I decided to write my senior English term paper on Margaret Sanger and birth control. Of course, there was no information on this topic in my high school library, and so I traveled to the Detroit Public Library to access what they had. Well, what they had was in a locked case and, in order to access it, I had to produce a written and signed letter of authorization from my high school English teacher, which I did. The librarian then unlocked the case and allowed me to read, under her supervision, the texts of the books pertaining to birth control that were in the case. That was in the fall of 1958. Now, I’m 71 and beginning to wonder if we’ve come very far, if at all. To relegate “abortion” to a stop word, meaning that the database will not search it, is to drastically inhibit research. One might as well, as the Detroit Public Library did in 1958, lock up the relevant texts in a case and require some kind of identification before making the information available. This is so STUPID! As a librarian I strongly object to people whose job it is to assemble and organize information to then deny access to it to those who seek it, for whatever reasons. This goes directly against everything I was taught in library school so many years ago!
Correction: I’ve got my dates mixed up. I was a high school senior in 1954, not 1958. Sorry about that!
so whats the deal, some of us were able to get results on our querys
perhaps they fixed the problem due to the Cnl complaint?
Try searching for:
4. Reducing black crime
3. Covering up the incestuous rape of your kin
2. Shmasmortion
and #1 on the list:
1. Preemptive war on Iraq.
Seriously how can people who are against abortion, support the idea of preemptive war? Call me crazy but I see some similarities. (And abortion comes out looking WAY better)
.
Well, if you can’t fully usurp the law (Roe V. Wade) or change it, one can ALWAYS make it increasingly difficult to gain necessary resources… NO?
.
I have sent an email to Debra L. Dickson to inform her of my unhappiness at this revelation. I expect each and every one of you to do the same. This is the email (Well most of it anyway) I sent:
To: Debra L. Dickson
POPLINE Database Manager/Administrator
INFO Project
111 Market Place, Suite 310, Baltimore, MD 21202
ddickson@jhuccp.org
Tel: 410-659-6300 / Fax: 410-659-6266
Dear Ms. Dickson (is that some kind of Freudian slip or something?)
I have come across an article (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/04/03/popline-restricts-the-word-abortion-from-the-government-funded-database/#comments) that informed me that it is virtually impossible for a normal thinking human being to search your POPLINE database (the world’s largest database on reproductive health) for information about abortion. This is a public database and I find it quite disturbing that people cannot easily find citations with abstracts to scientific articles, reports, books, and unpublished reports in the field of population, family planning, and related health issues in your database on your website which is there for that exact purpose. I would like to know why this has happened. I am sure not everybody who goes to your site to research the database is doing so with “abortion” in mind I feel that abortion is a very real part of reproductive health. My money went into that database and I expect to be able to access it in a way that a normal person would think is the best way to do it.
Just think; If Barbara Bush was able to access this database in what seems like so many years ago we may not be going through the problems we are experiencing at this time in the Unites States of America.I hope to receive a response from you in the very near future advising me that this problem(with the database haha)has been corrected. I wish to report back to my readers that the problem has been addressed and repaired.Sincerely,
Captain KangarooMr Greenjeans (I almost put my real name. oops.)