SCIENTISTS are conducting experiments to change the sexuality of “gay” sheep in a programme that critics fear could pave the way for breeding out homosexuality in humans.
The technique being developed by American researchers adjusts the hormonal balance in the brains of homosexual rams so that they are more inclined to mate with ewes.
I've heard rumblings against finding the so-called "gay gene" before. It's understandable, given the fear that people would exercise their right to abortion by killing off their gay offspring in utero. Still waiting to hear from those pro-choicers who will say, "Stop trying to enforce your moral standards on us!"
Evidently, former tennis star Martina Navratilova has waded into the frenzy to defend gay sheep.
Navratilova defended the "right" of sheep to be gay. She said: "How can it be that in the year 2006 a major university would host such homophobic and cruel experiments?" She said gay men and lesbians would be “deeply offended” by the social implications of the tests.
But others herald the study, saying it will allow parents greater freedom to raise the children they want.
Michael Bailey, a neurology professor at Northwestern University near Chicago, said: "Allowing parents to select their children’s sexual orientation would further a parent’s freedom to raise the sort of children they want to raise."
For the record, I'm against aborting gay babies--er, fetuses--er, embryos, as well as straight ones.
UPDATE: Now there is a study out of Denmark which evaluates social factors in sexual orientation.
This is a complex and difficult topic for me, as a gay man: it's hard to tell what would it mean for my life if it could be demonstrated that homosexuality was genetically programmed, and that that genetic programming could be altered? Sexuality is a fairly important part of identity; I find the notion that I could be reprogrammed at that level to be highly threatening.
ReplyDeleteStill, scientific research is scientific research, and the objection to such research in sheep is unworthy; whatever that research shows, isn't it better to know than to stick our head in the sand and say "la, la, i can't hear you?"
You know, Aphrael, I don't know that I mind the research, either, just because I think it might help end a lot of the arguments if we knew whether sexuality was genetic or environmental. I tend to think there is some genetic component because I know how difficult it is for people (at least the ones I've known) to come to grips with their homosexuality, become comfortable with it, and help friends and loved ones deal with their changed expectations. But I am torn because I know there would be people who would want to screen for homosexuality, and I think that's just wrong.
ReplyDeleteJim Newman here again from the university actually conducting the research.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the Sunday Times article which is he source of all these wild conspiracy theories, I am pleased that a writer has thoroughly investigated the article. As he reports, the Sunday Times article is filled with major errors and false claims. His analysis also raises important questions about the timing of the article which comes almost five years after the research was actually conducted.
Here’s a link to that analysis that anyone who is interested in this topic should read:
A wolf in gay sheep's clothing: Corruption at the London Times
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/4/134158/4348