Research news – Page 20 – Warren Throckmorton

Same-sex marriage conversation: What do we know? Part 2

As Part 2 of my series on same-sex parenting research, I am posting the transcript of a presentation delivered at the Catholic University just over a year ago. A section on same-sex marriage was provided after Michael Bailey and prior to my speech at the same comference.

(Quotes removed at the request of Brad Wilcox)

Here is a more socially conservative scholar who comes to an assessment similar to Meezan and Rauch: we don’t know much and not really enough.

Some distinctions are arising in the comments on other threads that should be sharpened going forward. Same-sex adoption of special needs kids should be distinguished from use of reproductive technologies to create kids without hope of knowing a parent of one gender. Whereas some would say public policy should not make these distinctions; others would say it can and should. What data exist to inform these discussions? Are there data that could address these issues? Or is policy to be made on the basis of presuppositional principles? How do we decide which principles apply? I would say the best interest of children would be such a principle. If research finds, on balance, discouraging results from studies of same-sex parenting (however defined), do equal protection arguments for adults trump any potential child consequences? What if research finds that some outcomes are better for same-sex parenting and some are not, then how should public policy take mixed results into account?

Let’s keep talking…

An antiboy antibody? Problems for the “maternal immune hypothesis”

In June 2006, Anthony Bogaert released a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science which created a world wide buzz about a possible biological basis for the same-sex attraction of some men.

A recent Journal of Biosocial Science article by Neil Whitehead takes on this hypothesis and finds several problems. I don’t have time for a detailed analysis at this time (I am behind on as it is on these – notably on the Witelson brain study), but I do want to get this on the radar. Here is his concluding section:

An antiboy antibody? Unlikely. Gooren (2006), in his review on psychosexual development, bluntly concludes ‘The biological basis advanced for the fraternal birth order hypothesis lacks any experimental support’. The present paper argues further that there is a significant weight of evidence against the MIH, whatever the explanation of the FBO [fraternal birth order] effect may be. The MIH was an intellectually clean and satisfying explanation for the FBO effect, and its original authors are to be commended. However, present evidence is for alloimmune reactions being probably too rare to account for the SSA prevalence observed, no support for macrostructural-level attack, unlikely attack on brain if not on testes, no MIH-related lower birth weight, healthier late-birth-order males. At the least, any modification of the MIH would demand serious consideration of the apparent disproportionate deaths of female fetuses during immune attack. One might sincerely hope that any revised theory will be simpler than the present one – which in any case attempts to account for only 17% of SSA.

The very division of SSA into FBO origin and other more major origins seems to raise difficulties. Twin study conclusions are challenging because they simultaneously dispose of most biological and social reasons for SSA; erratic and individualistic causes should predominate.

Because of the erratic nature of SSA in later-birth-order boys, even an acceptance of the MIH would seem to demand an acceptance of a principle that something akin to chance predominates.

This is close to my current view of orientation development on the whole – not terribly satisfying, but an honest appraisal of the research as it is. Note this is an assessment of the development of SSA and says nothing about how changeable it might be. Nothing here relates to women either. As an aside, I have been reading some research which suggests that the erotic orientation of men becomes more channelized than for women; meaning that in brain scans, for instance, men show very specific reactions to their preferred object of sexual attraction, whereas, women more frequently demonstrate sexual arousal to images of both gender.

Call it Biagra – A drug to switch orientation?

The new fruit fly research has observers wondering about a drug to alter sexual orientation. This article by John Tierney raises some of the inevitable questions which will arise if indeed such a bridge can be made between flies and humans.

He quotes an email from researcher David Featherstone on the controversy:

I asked Dr. Featherstone if it might be possible one day to quickly alter humans’ sexual orientation. Here’s his answer:

Although I am not sure my research is a big step in this direction, I think that ultimately the answer will be: Yes. After all, the goal of neuroscience is a complete understanding of brain function. Understanding in science is typically demonstrated by the ability to control a process.This morning, I received an email from a transsexual 5 years into her hormone therapy. She told me she regularly modifies her libido and orientation with diet and drugs. She even sent me a scientific reference explaining why her regimen might work. Now that is amazing research.The question of whether or not homosexuality should be turned on and off is not a scientific question. It is an ethical/societal dilemma. I am glad my work is stimulating the discussion earlier rather than later. History is replete with poorly thought out attempts to ‘cure’ societal/behavioral ‘illnesses’ that turned out, with proper perspective, to not be ‘illnesses’ at all.

This seems like science fiction now, but deciding such matters may be ahead of us. Good to talk about it now.

UPDATE: John Tierney has posted more from David Featherstone with more explicit commentary about what is novel about his work. He ends his emails on this note regarding ethics:

So the question is not if we will understand the biological basis of homosexuality enough to alter it, but when. And what people will choose to do with the knowledge. If there is a demand, I guarantee some pharmaceutical company will make the stuff. Or will the government outlaw treatments for behaviors that are obviously no threat to the individual or society? Would this imply that the government officially thinks that homosexuality is no one’s business but one’s own?

Gay gene and bad parents out, neoteny in?

Desmond Morris, author of the Naked Ape, has a new book out called the Naked Man. Not a protocol for your next New Warriors Training Adventure, rather, it is an attempt to apply zoology to human behavior. In this article, Richard Brooks reviews reaction to Morris’ new theory where

…he concludes that men are “made gay” because they retain infantile or juvenile characteristics into adulthood – a phenomenon known as neoteny.

According to this theory, gay men also tend to be more inventive and creative than heterosexuals because they are more likely to retain the mental agility and playfulness of childhood.

With his new theory, he has left the reparative/Freudian reservation.

Morris, who is 80 in January, long thought that absent fathers led to boys and young male adults becoming gay. “[It is] the dominant and ever-present mother theory,” he said. “But now I’m convinced that is wrong, and that it is neoteny which makes people gay. Gays are using what is reproductive or creatively constructive to non-reproductive ends. This is very much a positive.”

Not all agree of course.

His theory was, however, attacked by Steve Jones, professor of genetics at University College London. “It’s arts faculty science to say that gays are neotenous,” he said. “It’s a stupid idea. Where is the real evidence?”

And as if we needed anymore whacks at the gay gene, we read

Most commentators though, including Morris, Tatchell and Glenn Wilson – co-author of the book Born Gay, published in 2005 – believe that the so-called “gay gene” theory is discredited.

Speaking of gay genes, fruit fly sexual orientation is of great interest to all people who like fruit. I, for one, would like it if the little critters would stop being so prolific in my kitchen. At any rate, researcher David Featherstone is pretty excited about the discovery of a gene he called genderblind (GB). GB is involved in distinguishing male and female and with some laboratory manipulation can make straight flies gay.

Putting the two studies together…well, I will leave that to you and Dave Letterman.

H/t on the neoteny article to Jayhuck

Duke lab maps silenced genes

Understanding genetics is difficult enough, but now comes new information about gene copies that get switched off leading to vulnerabilities and unanticipated pathways in development.

This AP article describes a paper regarding “silenced” genes and raises many questions about how the environment might turn on and off copies of genes. Here is the introduction:

Duke scientists map ‘silenced genes’

By LAURAN NEERGAARD, AP Medical Writer Fri Nov 30, 6:49 AM ET

WASHINGTON – Remember biology class where you learned that children inherit one copy of a gene from mom and a second from dad? There’s a twist: Some of those genes arrive switched off, so there is no backup if the other copy goes bad, making you more vulnerable to disorders from obesity to cancer. if(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new Object(); window.yzq_d[‘o.OVcULEYrE-‘]=’&U=13brmd2ke%2fN%3do.OVcULEYrE-%2fC%3d629244.11793224.12324303.1442997%2fD%3dLREC%2fB%3d5063146’;

Duke University scientists now have identified these “silenced genes,” creating the first map of this unique group of about 200 genes believed to play a profound role in people’s health.

More intriguing, the work marks an important step in studying how our environment — food, stress, pollution — interacts with genes to help determine why some people get sick and others do not.