Dean Byrd – Warren Throckmorton

Alan Osmond channels NARTH

One member of the very talented Osmond family has taken up homosexuality as an interest. Huffington Post today posted about an article on Osmond’s website as if the article was a recent one. However, apparently it was posted in July. And the piece was not actually written by Osmond, but by Dean Byrd, NARTH board member and past-president in 1999.
In this article that Osmond quotes as an authority, Byrd wrote:

Other researchers note treatment success rates that exceed 50 percent, which is similar to the success rates for treating other difficulties.

Really? One of the studies that quoted a 50% cure rate was reported in 1967 by Harvey Kaye and the Society for Medical Psychoanalysis. However, Dr. Kaye recently told me that the study was wrong and discredited.
Despite dwindling influence among professionals (the recent conference in AZ only drew 70-80 people), NARTH continues to find support among lay people such as here in the case of Osmond. Since NARTH is mostly lay people, I guess that makes sense.

NARTH says Francis Collins is mistaken about his own work

Let’s start at the beginning of this story.
On April 4, 2007, Dean Byrd posted an article on the NARTH website titled, “‘Homosexuality Is Not Hardwired,’ Concludes Dr. Francis S. Collins, Head Of The Human Genome Project” In this article, Byrd quotes from Collins book, The Language of God, citing Collins views of the genetics and homosexuality. In it, Byrd wrote:

As Dr. Collins would agree, environment can influence gene expression, and free will determines the response to whatever predispositions might be present.
Dr. Collins succinctly reviewed the research on homosexuality and offers the following: “An area of particularly strong public interest is the genetic basis of homosexuality. Evidence from twin studies does in fact support the conclusion that heritable factors play a role in male homosexuality. However, the likelihood that the identical twin of a homosexual male will also be gay is about 20% (compared with 2-4 percent of males in the general population), indicating that sexual orientation is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations.”
Dr. Collins noted that environment, particularly childhood experiences as well as the role of free will choices affect all of us in profound ways. As researchers discover increasing levels of molecular detail about inherited factors that underlie our personalities, it’s critical that such data be used to illuminate, not provide support to idealogues.

On May 17, 2007, the editor of Ex-gay Watch, David Roberts, wrote an email to Collins asking him if Byrd’s article accurately represented Collins’ views. (The entire correspondence can be reviewed at this link.)
On May 20, 2007, Collins wrote back to Roberts saying about the Byrd article:

The words quoted by NARTH all come from the Appendix to my book “The Language of God” (pp. 260-263), but have been juxtaposed in a way that suggests a somewhat different conclusion that I intended. I would urge anyone who is concerned about the meaning to refer back to the original text.
The evidence we have at present strongly supports the proposition that there are hereditary factors in male homosexuality — the observation that an identical twin of a male homosexual has approximately a 20% likelihood of also being gay points to this conclusion, since that is 10 times the population incidence. But the fact that the answer is not 100% also suggests that other factors besides DNA must be involved. That certainly doesn’t imply, however, that those other undefined factors are inherently alterable.

On September 15, 2008, Greg Quinlan of PFOX told OneNewsNow that the human genome had been mapped and there was no genetic cause for homosexuality. Quinlan attributed this information to Francis Collins, seeming to paraphrase the NARTH article.
On September 19, 2008, Roberts again wrote to Collins to ask him to verify that the prior statement about Byrd’s misleading use of his views was indeed given by Collins.
On September 20, 2008, Collins wrote back to Roberts saying

Thanks for the heads up. I am truly sorry to hear that there is a continuing effort by Mr. Quinlan and others to distort this information about genetic factors in homosexuality. The facts have not changed since the e-mail message I sent you on May 20, 2007.
Regards, Francis Collins

On September 21, 2008, Roberts wrote back to Collins and asked him to copy me in the email exchange. Roberts did this because Quinlan accused Roberts of making fraudulent claims about Collins. Feeling I could be objective, Roberts wanted Collins to include me in the email loop given that I am not associated with any gay advocacy groups. I had also written Collins to verify the statements made on Roberts’ blog.
On September 21, 2008, Collins wrote back with the following message:

Hello David and Warren,
I am happy to confirm that these e-mail communications from May 2007 and yesterday are indeed authentic, and represent my best effort at summarzing what we know and what we don’t know about genetic factors in male homosexuality. I appreciate your continuing efforts to correct misstatements that seem to be circulating on the internet.
Regards, Francis Collins

This background is important in order to put NARTH’s response to Collins into context. Earlier this year, NARTH posted an article attacking David Roberts with the charge that Roberts misled Collins. NARTH did not like Collins response to Roberts and NARTH blamed Roberts for Collins’ response.
After the NARTH article came out, Roberts conducted a Freedom of Information Act request to find correspondence between the NARTH and Collins. As the result of his request, he received an undated letter sent from NARTH’s President Julie Hamilton to Collins. The letter is here and is summarized at XGW.
In this letter, Hamilton blames Roberts and me for Collins response to Byrd’s article. Is it really possible that Roberts and I persuaded the Director of the National Institutes of Health and one of the premiere scientists of our time to misread Byrd’s article? About NARTH’s letter, Roberts says,

In it, Collins is treated more like a doddering old man than the head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Even though we sent a link to the original article with our email to Collins, and it is clear from his reply that he read it, Hamilton encloses a copy noting “Although Warren Throckmorton [see this post to see where he comes in] and David Roberts led you to believe otherwise, your statements were not misrepresented by NARTH.” No, Dr. Collins, regardless of what you think, you do agree with us — sheer arrogance.

What is NARTH saying about Dr. Collins when they tell him that he was persuaded to misunderstand his own book? It appears that NARTH will not accept that Collins means what he says. Counting his response to the American College of Pediatricians (several NARTH board members are affiliated with this group), he has spoken out three times about the way NARTH has characterized his views. NARTH’s response is to his continue to blame the messengers.
For more, see

Francis Collins rebukes the American College of Pediatricians: A closer look

Skip Narth, read Collins – UPDATED with NARTH statement

NARTH really wants to be on the same page with Francis Collins, the current Director of the National Institute of Health. Or at least they really want you to think they are. NARTH is now accusing Exgaywatch editor of somehow duping Francis Collins into criticizing a NARTH article by Dean Byrd which cited Collins. Yes, that is right, NARTH believes David (Skywalker) Roberts and the Jedi Knights at XGW used their mind tricks on the current director of the National Institute of Health, causing him to misrepresent a NARTH article.
You need to go read Roberts post at XGW to get the story.
About the current NARTH apologetic, there are a couple of observations I would like to offer.
Throughout the current article, NARTH confuses genetic with biological. Perhaps, “simple biological theory” means genetic to NARTH. But such a description obscures more than it clarifies. Note this passage:

In April, 2007, NARTH posted a peer-reviewed article which considered what science could and could not say about the genesis of homosexuality. The article basically focused on whether not homosexuality could be explained by a simple biological theory. The article cited a number of studies and scientists, including Dr. Francis S. Collins, and basically, concluded that evidence for a simple biological theory of homosexuality was lacking. The article made no mention of alterability of homosexuality.

The first problem here is that the NARTH article does not consider what “science could and could not say about the genesis of homosexuality.” It did not focus on “whether not homosexuality could be explained by a simple biological theory.” Nor did it conclude that “evidence for a simple biological theory of homosexuality was lacking.” What it did do was briefly discuss estimates of heritability based on several twin studies.
The problem with NARTH’s description is that biology is more than heritability. There are genetic factors which show up larger than expected by chance which is all Collins had to say about the matter. He did not opine on prenatal hormonal influences, such as prenatal testosterone. Collins did not opine on the reasons for maternal chromosomal skewing which occurs far more often in moms of gay men than in moms of straight men. Collins did not discuss brain scans demonstrating differential responses based on sexual orientation to male and female sweat. Nor did Collins say anything in his book about differences in brain symmetry between gays and straights. Thus, Collins did not review all of the biological evidence, nor did NARTH in its “peer-reviewed” article consider “what science could and could not say about the genesis of homosexuality” or demonstrate that a “simple biological theory was lacking.”
In the current article, NARTH labors to demonstrate that Collins agrees with them but doesn’t deal with the fact that he did not agree with them when he commented on the matter. If NARTH contacted Collins directly, it is not disclosed. Their problem is not with XGW but with Collins who said that the original article used his quotes which were “juxtaposed in a way that suggests a somewhat different conclusion that I intended. I would urge anyone who is concerned about the meaning to refer back to the original text.” (quote from Collins to Roberts).
That is good advice. Skip NARTH and go read the Language of God by Francis Collins.
UPDATE: In preparation for this post, I wrote David Pruden and asked if NARTH had made an attempt to contact Dr. Collins with their concerns. First of all, Mr. Pruden clarified that he did not write the article, but rather NARTH’s executive committee did. Here is the response of NARTH’s executive committee to my inquiries:

If Dr. Collins had problems with a NARTH article, it was his responsibility to contact us.

So the problem here is Dr. Collins?
I also asked about NARTH’s peer review process. They wrote:

NARTH’s articles go through the Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC). Scientists, both affiliated and unaffiliated with NARTH, are peer-reviewers. As you are aware, peer reviews are blinded reviews and the identity of peer-reviewers remain anonymous; otherwise the peer review process would not work. The peer review process is similar to the peer review process at other places. Steve Simon’s involvement was noted at the end of the article which was posted in 2007.

So the reviewers are their advisors and some unnamed people who are not on their board. Most journals publish an editorial board member list so one can see the qualifications of those who vouch for the integrity of the content. The SAC is published but the outside reviewers are not.
I also asked if NARTH was going to publish the results of their Freedom of Information Request. They replied:

The FOI request resulted in a significant amount of information, only some of which was related to this article. Perhaps you might be willing to publish your communication with Dr. Collins to see how that compares to the information we have obtained.

Click the link in order to see what Dr. Collins wrote to David Roberts and me. I posted about the matter here in 2008 when PFOX’s Greg Quinlan misrepresented Collins’ views.

New gay change group cites Francis Collins to mislead readers

One would think a scathing criticism on the National Institute of Health from NIH director Francis Collins would be enough to stop misuse of his book, the Language of God. However, not so for a relatively new Latter Day Saint sexual reorientation organization called Foundation for Attraction Research. Writing in the Salt Lake City Tribune, FAR Board members Dennis V. Dahle, John P. Livingstone and M. Gawain Wells provide the same quote that led Collins to rebuke the American College of Pediatricians.

As to science, contrary to a source cited by Hansen that same-sex attractions are of purely biological origin, Dr. Francis S. Collins, former director of the National Human Genome Research Institute and the current director of the National Institutes of Health, reached a very different conclusion. Collins, in addressing the etiology of homosexuality in his book, The Language of God, offers the conclusion that homosexuality is “genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations.”

Exgaywatch first reported on the misuse of Collins’ words back in 2008. At that point, Dr. Collins wrote to me in order to verify his communication with David Roberts, editor at XGW.

Then, the American College of Pediatricians cited Collins in an effort to establish the mutability of sexual orientation. Collins did not take kindly to their citation and wrote the following on the NIH website.

Statement from NIH Director Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., in Response to the American College of Pediatricians

Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D.

Director

April 15, 2010

“It is disturbing for me to see special interest groups distort my scientific observations to make a point against homosexuality. The American College of Pediatricians pulled language out of context from a book I wrote in 2006 to support an ideology that can cause unnecessary anguish and encourage prejudice. The information they present is misleading and incorrect, and it is particularly troubling that they are distributing it in a way that will confuse school children and their parents.”

Now the Foundation for Attraction Research takes up the same line of argumentation, although in a somewhat more subtle manner. While the first quote from Collins is clearly about homosexuality and represents Collins views about that specific trait, the second one is not. The FAR authors write:

Collins offers the following additional insight on homosexuality: “There is an inescapable component of heritability to many human behavioral traits. For virtually none of them is heredity ever close to predictive. Environment, particularly childhood experiences, and the prominent role of individual free will choices have a profound effect on us. Scientists will discover an increasing level of molecular detail about the inherited factors that undergird our personalities, but that should not lead us to overestimate their quantitative contribution. Yes we have all been dealt a particular set of cards, and the cards will eventually be revealed. But how we play the hand is up to us.”

While the quote is in Language of God, the statement leading up to it – “Collins offers the following additional insight on homosexuality” – is not. In the book, Collins makes a general statement about the role of genetics and environment but does not offer this view specifically about homosexuality. He does not suggest that “free will” or “childhood experiences” have anything to do with homosexual attraction. The authors want you to think that he does but he does not.

Regarding sexual reorientation which seems to be the real issue for FAR, Collins said this to Roberts and me in the earlier correspondence:

The evidence we have at present strongly supports the proposition that there are hereditary factors in male homosexuality — the observation that an identical twin of a male homosexual has approximately a 20% likelihood of also being gay points to this conclusion, since that is 10 times the population incidence. But the fact that the answer is not 100% also suggests that other factors besides DNA must be involved. That certainly doesn’t imply, however, that those other undefined factors are inherently alterable. (emphasis mine)

No one knows what sexual attractions to be directed toward the same sex. Collins does not opine on these factors in his book beyond saying that they may not be strongly related to genetics. There are other biological factors besides genes that could be involved. Whatever those factors turn out to be does not mean that they are alterable.

What George Rekers told a Florida court

The blogs continued to blow up over the continuing disclosures regarding George Rekers relationship with a Miami gay man. Apparently the young man has disclosed details of their European trip and is set to go on CNN with more.

In addition to the current event, some reports have looked into Dr. Rekers’ views and beliefs. That is more my purpose with this post. Dr. Rekers has provided controversial testimony in several court cases, the most notable Arkansas and Florida cases which contested adoptions by gay people. I saw in this report from NBC Miami that Rekers was paid between $60,900 and $87,000 to testify in favor of a ban on gay adoptions. In addition, and what really caught my eye, was his testimony that Native Americans could be excluded from adopting children. Here is the exchange included in the news article:

Q. Well, Dr. Rekers, earlier you testified that Native-Americans have a higher rate of alcohol abuse than the general population does, right?

A. Yes.

Q. It’s a very significantly elevated rate of alcohol abuse, I mean compared to the general population?

A. Yes.

Q. So if Native-Americans have significantly higher rates of alcohol abuse, and if they also have significantly higher rates of psychiatric disorders, and if they also have higher rates of relationship instability, is that enough for you to say that all of a sudden they should be categorically excluded?

The Court: I think you can add violence to that, as well.

The Witness: Yeah, violence, yeah.

Q. And violence, as well.

A. Yeah, if it turned out that a majority of the individuals in the Native-American population, that a majority of them were high risk for one of these things happening, as a lifetime prevalence, there could be a parallel rationale for excluding them, as adoptive parents, because it would be not only them, they would tend to hang around each other. So the children would be around a lot of other Native-Americans, who are doing the same sorts of things, you know. So it would be a high risk, and, in fact, since you can’t perfectly predict human behavior, the best you can do and the best the State can do is to look at risk levels, and if a particular kind of household poses multiple high risks for condition that would be detrimental for children, then that would be a rationale for excluding that group.

I was unable to find the entire transcript of the testimony, but did find the ruling from the case which initially upheld the adoption of Jane and John Doe, decided by Judge Cindy Lederman. In that case, Judge Lederman noted on pages 20-21:

There is no question that Dr. Rekers supports the continued ban on homosexual adoption and even the imposition of a ban on homosexual foster parenting based on the high rates of disorders, distressing conditions and relationship instability reported in the studies he considers telling. The witness testified that he does not support such a categorical exclusion of a demographic group based on one variable; rather, his opinion for the exclusion is based an overall sum of variables. Thus, according to the doctor, any demographic group with overall high variable risks poses a threat to an adoptive child and should be excluded. As applied to the instant facts, the witness opines that Petitioner is in a high risk group; the majority of individuals sharing Petitioner’s demographic characteristic of homosexuality suffer from a disorder or have the propensity to suffer from a disorder; therefore, even if Petitioner is studied to determine his individual risk factor, the prediction for his propensity to succumb to a lifetime prevalence of risk cannot be overcome. Based on Dr. Rekers’ theory, as Native Americans have a high rate of alcohol abuse, substance abuse, domestic violence, depression, and a life time prevalence of these risks, Native Americans should also be considered a high risk group as prospective adoptive parents as well.

I wrote briefly about such thinking in 2006 when I received criticism from NARTH leaders over my view that homosexuals could lead normal lives. NARTH has continued to champion the view that homosexuality should be changed and opposed due to research finding higher levels of depression, anxiety and other mental health concerns. Currently, on their website, they promote an article which conflates orientation and certain sexual practices. Furthermore, NARTH leaders, including George Rekers, make up the majority of the advisory committee for the Facts About Youth website. A project of the splinter-group American College of Pediatricians, the FAY website parrots the NARTH view that “[t]here is significantly greater medical, psychological, and relational pathology in the homosexual population than the general population.” By saying in his Florida testimony that members of other groups (e.g., Native Americans) are not fit to parent based on group differences, Rekers was just taking the NARTH view to a logical conclusion — a conclusion which is shockingly elitist.

If this view is advanced as a basis for public policy, then perhaps female physicians should not adopt since at least one study found that the rate of suicide is four times higher for them than other females. I think rather, the real basis for concern over homosexual parents relates to Rekers professed moral views which were also on display in the Florida court. According to Judge Lederman’s ruling, Rekers said psychology as a profession and the law should recognize evangelical theology:

An honest scholarly search for the truth about homosexuality should not stop with psychological or medical information alone. Wise professionals should also consider evidence for moral truth as well. The bible teaches that people are foolish if they deny God’s reality and live their lives as though he were not there…. What happens when psychologists and psychiatrists search for truth about homosexuality, but close the door to any possibility of information from the creator of the human race? What happens if scholars deliberately discard all moral evidence as irrelevant to their professional judgments? Roman’s describes the consequences in suppressing truth revealed by the creator…. Those verses indicate that the existence of God is evident within each person, so psychologists and psychiatrists who proceed as though he does not exist are deliberately suppressing truth. To search for truth about homosexuality in psychology and psychiatry, while ignoring God, will result in futile and foolish speculations.

To me, this line of thinking makes it clear why evangelical scholars must face the data with an awareness of our theological biases. Moral concerns are not irrelevant but they must not guide one to preset conclusions in opposition to data and research. To wit, Rekers also testified in the Florida case that children who were bonded to a homosexual parent should be removed from that home and placed with a heterosexual couple. Judge Lederman’s noted:

Furthermore, according to Dr. Rekers, if children are bonded to a homosexual foster parent, such a placement may continue because the foster care laws permit regular monitoring. However, adoption should not be an option because of the absence of monitoring and safeguards. Dr. Rekers astounded the Court when he testified that he favors removal of any child from a homosexual household, even after placement in that household for ten years, in favor of a heterosexual household. To this Court’s further astonishment, the witness hypothesized that such a child would recover from the removal from his family of 10 years after one year in a heterosexual household. The Court finds this testimony to be contrary to science and decades of research in child development.

The hypotheses regarding bonding and what is better for kids were driven by Reker’s moral posturing and not research. It is not surprising that Judge Lederman dismissed Rekers’ testimony as unscientific and biased:

Dr. Rekers’ testimony was far from a neutral and unbiased recitation of the relevant scientific evidence. Dr. Rekers’ beliefs are motivated by his strong ideological and theological convictions that are not consistent with the science. Based on his testimony and demeanor at trial, the court can not consider his testimony to be credible nor worthy of forming the basis of public policy.

Dr. Rekers’ recent actions have put the spotlight on his views. While Dr. Rekers may find less personal influence in coming days, it is an open question whether his actions will cast a negative light on those who hold similar positions.