On Wednesday, as part of a sweeping set of proposals related to guns and violence, President Barack Obama said that he would ask Congress to "fund research into the effect that violent videogames have on young minds."

Additionally, a fact sheet released by the White House stated that the Obama administration proposes that the Center For Disease Control conduct research into "the relationship between video games, media images, and violence."

Wired's Andrew Groen and Chris Kohler found themselves on opposite sides of this issue, and discuss their respective opinions below.

Andrew Groen: Games Industry Should Welcome Obama's Violence Studies ——————————————————————–

Among gamers, I'm sure I'm in the minority on this issue, but I really don't see the problem with President Obama funding more research into the effects of violent videogames.

Videogames are protected by First Amendment freedoms, so the worst thing that can happen is that we discover there is some link between games and violence and learn from that discovery. The best that can happen is a very public declaration that there is no link at all.

Neither of these scenarios are bad for us. The discovery of a link would be a good thing for this industry. Not only would we gain a greater insight into the power of interactivity, but we'd also learn how to avoid its pitfalls. Parents would be armed with important information that would allow them to make the most informed decisions possible for their kids, and mature adults would know more about how their mind might be affected.

Nothing is gained in ignorance.

The current research is divided on whether there's a link between violent games and violent thoughts or acts: Many studies show a definitive link, many show no link at all, and still more were inconclusive.

What is the harm in asking further questions? Do we know how constant exposure to interactive violence affects a person over a period of decades? I find it highly unlikely that constant consumption of anything for decades could have no effect on a person.

I'll be disappointed if the new research only examines the short-term effects of violent games on people, but if the funding goes toward long-term research that could yield additional insights then this is surely a good thing for the industry.

At a certain point further study becomes frivolous. We don't need more information on whether potatoes cause malaria, for instance. I don't think we've reached that point with videogames yet. There are still many unknowns.

Give a gamer the chance and he or she will wax poetic about the power of interactivity, and the unique nature of the videogaming medium to convey powerful emotions.

However, as soon as we start talking about violence in games, this argument disappears. Suddenly, violent games are no different than violent films or comic books and should be treated exactly the same as those mediums.

Personally, I do believe there's something incredibly special about the power of interactivity, and I think it's worth the funding to study everything we can about it.

Chris Kohler: Don't Let's Hop On The Moral Panic Wheel ——————————————————

I would like to believe that every study of violence in the media is conducted with an open mind and an absence of an agenda, and I would also like to believe that all studies, no matter what the results, are given equal attention and careful consideration. I would like to believe that, but I don't think those things are true.

The diagram shown above probably comes closer to illustrating the true state of today's research on games that depict violence. This comes from a report in the American Psychological Association's Review of General Psychology by Christopher J. Ferguson of Texas A&M.

"Research regarding the impact of violent video games on aggression is inconsistent and hampered by poor methodologies and the intrusion of ideology and scientific dogma," Ferguson wrote. "In media violence studies, claims of causal certainty are unprecedented. These claims, such as that the impact of media violence on viewers approaches that of smoking and lung cancer, should have invited close scrutiny and skepticism from the scientific community. Instead they have been embraced by professional scientific organizations with minimal oversight."

We decide that something is a problem, then seek out studies that validate our belief. It doesn't matter what the studies actually say, because the very existence of the study is proof enough: If all these scientists are studying "the link between games and violence," surely that link must exist; why else would they be studying it so ardently and for so many years?

These are exactly the sort of studies that the Obama administration is asking for. Note the language used in the fact sheet: "the relationship between video games, media images, and violence." The administration is begging the question; implicit in this call for studies is the foregone conclusion that there is a relationship between games and violence, and all that remains is simply to figure out what it is. The possibility that there is no such relationship, which is backed up by many studies that you don't hear about, is excluded by the language of the request.

"An overemphasis on the potential deleterious effects of violent games, whether real or imagined, also preempts discussion of the strategic use of violent games as a positive force in cognitive development, education, psychological treatment, and health care," Ferguson continues.

Indeed: There might be all sorts of important studies yet to be done on videogames that could show them to be much more beneficial than we previously thought, but those studies are made less likely to happen, not more, if we can't stop talking about the "relationship between video games ... and violence." That could impede the growth of videogames even if the Constitution does not.

Moreover, the First Amendment stops at the borders of the United States, and games are global. More scaremongering about games and violence could still have a chilling effect on speech if game creators have to consider laws passed in countries without the benefit of the U.S.' broad speech protections.

The nakedly political aim of this proposed funding is to assuage people who demand that Something Must Be Done. Might the studies that come out of this proposal give us information we don't already have and make a positive difference, rather than contributing to the noise in the echo chamber that's been bouncing around since the days of Mortal Kombat? It's possible, but so far all I see is more of the same.