Science told: hands off gay sheep

[E.J.]

Science told: hands off gay sheep

Isabel Oakeshott and Chris Gourlay

Experiments that claim to ?cure? homosexual rams spark anger

LINK

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.

It raises the prospect that pregnant women could one day be offered a treatment to reduce or eliminate the chance that their offspring will be homosexual. Experts say that, in theory, the ?straightening? procedure on humans could be as simple as a hormone supplement for mothers-to-be, worn on the skin like an anti-smoking nicotine patch.

The research, at Oregon State University in the city of Corvallis and at the Oregon Health and Science University in Portland, has caused an outcry. Martina Navratilova, the lesbian tennis player who won Wimbledon nine times, and scientists and gay rights campaigners in Britain have called for the project to be abandoned.

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 the researchers argue that the work is valid, shedding light on the ?broad question? of what determines sexual orientation. They insist the work is not aimed at ?curing? homosexuality.

Approximately one ram in 10 prefers to mount other rams rather than mate with ewes, reducing its value to a farmer. Initially, the publicly funded project aimed to improve the productivity of herds.

The scientists have been able to pinpoint the mechanisms influencing the desires of ?male-oriented? rams by studying their brains. The animals? skulls are cut open and electronic sensors are attached to their brains.

By varying the hormone levels, mainly by injecting hormones into the brain, they have had ?considerable success? in altering the rams? sexuality, with some previously gay animals becoming attracted to ewes.

Professor Charles Roselli, the Health and Science University biologist leading the research, defended the project.

He said: ?In general, sexuality has been under-studied because of political concerns. People don?t want science looking into what determines sexuality.

?It?s a touchy issue. In fact, several studies have shown that people who believe homosexuality is biologically based are less homophobic than people who think that this orientation is acquired.?

The research is being peer-reviewed by a panel of scientists in America, demonstrating that it is being taken seriously by the academic community.

Potentially, the techniques could one day be adapted for human use, with doctors perhaps being able to offer parents pre-natal tests to determine the likely sexuality of offspring or a hormonal treatment to change the orientation of a child.

Roselli has said he would be ?uncomfortable? about parents choosing sexuality, but argues that it is up to policy makers to legislate on questions of ethics.

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.?

Critics fear the findings could be abused.

Udo Schuklenk, Professor of Bioethics at Glasgow Caledonian University, who has written to the researchers pressing them to stop, said: ?I don?t believe the motives of the study are homophobic, but their work brings the terrible possibility of exploitation by homophobic societies. Imagine this technology in the hands of Iran, for example.

?It is typical of the US to ignore the global context in which this is taking place.?

Peter Tatchell, the gay rights campaigner, said: ?These experiments echo Nazi research in the early 1940s which aimed at eradicating homosexuality. They stink of eugenics. There is a danger that extreme homophobic regimes may try to use these experimental results to change the orientation of gay people.?

He said that the techniques being developed in sheep could in future allow parents to ?play God?.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the pressure group, condemned the study as ?a needless slaughter of animals, an affront to human dignity and a colossal waste of precious research funds?.

The tests on gay sheep are the latest in a long line of experiments seeking to alter the sexuality of humans and animals.

G?nther Dorner, a scientist in the former East Berlin, carried out hormone-altering tests on rodents in the 1960s in the hope of finding a way to eradicate homosexuality.

In 2002, Simon LeVay, an American neurologist, claimed to have discovered that homosexual and heterosexual men had physically different brains. His tests on the corpses of gay men who had died of Aids were widely criticised.

Copyright 2007 Times Newspapers Ltd.

[DesDownunder]

The real worry here is the statement:

Roselli has said he would be ?uncomfortable? about parents choosing sexuality, but argues that it is up to policy makers to legislate on questions of ethics

.

When individuals, especially people of science, abrogate ethical responsibility as being someone else's job we should be very alarmed.

The Nazis used this sort of statement to avoid being held responsible for their atrocities.

[blue]

Sadly too true, Des.

Ethics, morals, those start and end with the individual person, not someone else. A lot of people find it easy to say it's all them when they're right, and all somebody else's fault when they're wrong.

It can be hard to admit when we've screwed up, even hardet to change, but it's honest and it can gain some respect.

-----

More to the point of the topic, I am, like it or not, a product of my genetics and my environment, my experiences. That doesn't mean I'm *only* that or *stuck* in that. It does mean those things contributed to who I am.

I don't know who I'd be or what I'd be like if I weren't gay or had great eyesight or a few different events in my life. Would I be better or worse or about the same or very different? Who knows.

Does it matter? Well, since I'm me, I suppose it doesn't matter too much. That would be some other reality. Though I do wish things were better in some ways or for people I care about, past, present, or future.

The idea, though, that someone could choose not to have a child who is "different" or could choose to change that "difference," no matter if it's being gay or some other human factor, even if it might not always be desirable.... That bothers me. I have known too many people who were wonderful specifically because they had "flaws" or imperfections, and had learned to cope with or overcome them or work around them.

Yes, this type of thing is a hot-button issue for me. It hits close to home for many reasons.

-----

On a lighter note -- Let those sheep be, they're not hurtin' anybody. It really shouldn't matter to anyone but another sheep.

Let them do what they wool.

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

[DesDownunder]

blue wrote:

Does it matter? Well, since I'm me, I suppose it doesn't matter too much. That would be some other reality. Though I do wish things were better in some ways or for people I care about, past, present, or future.

The idea, though, that someone could choose not to have a child who is "different" or could choose to change that "difference," no matter if it's being gay or some other human factor, even if it might not always be desirable.... That bothers me. I have known too many people who were wonderful specifically because they had "flaws" or imperfections, and had learned to cope with or overcome them or work around them.

Yes, this type of thing is a hot-button issue for me. It hits close to home for many reasons.

-----

On a lighter note -- Let those sheep be, they're not hurtin' anybody. It really shouldn't matter to anyone but another sheep.

Let them do what they wool.

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

Yes, I agree blue, in addition I think one person's 'flaws' are another's perfections.

We are so often taught to seek someone else's idea of perfection the we do not see the richness that difference provides to our life experience.

As for the sheep well I have no problem with a sheep pulling the wool over another sheep's eyes especially if they are both enjoying it.

[JamesSavik]

Science told: hands off gay sheep

I take it the scientests were kiwis.

[DesDownunder]

Science told: hands off gay sheep

I take it the scientests were kiwis.

Depends where they were putting their hands.

[Drewbie]

Actually this is an really old story, peta just brought this backup, that also is misleading.

it was originally written five years ago.

[E.J.]

Actually this is an really old story, peta just brought this backup, that also is misleading.

it was originally written five years ago.

The original study involving brain differences in gay sheep was completed in 2002. The follow-up study, where they attempted to alter the sexuallity of sheep in the womb, was published (in part) in June of 2006.

But you are right, PETA did bring this up. I don't think that fact makes the story any less "news worthy".

Those follow-up studies ? some of whose results were published in the June 2006 issue of the journal Endocrine ? involved pregnant ewes receiving testosterone-inhibiting treatments, either surgically or by injection, to determine whether the level of testosterone in the womb determined a baby sheep?s sexual orientation. The results from the studies were inconclusive, but critics argue they could open the door to human beings attempting to influence a child?s sexual orientation prenatally.

[smiley7]

Before I go any further, I'd like to say that I'm completely against the desire to alter sexuality, the abuse to animals that comes with it, and really everything related and that it stands for.

That said, isn't it the people who would choose to utilize this technology that are exactly the kind of people we want to be kept away from gay people? If they had a gay child, that kid would have a very unfortunate upbringing. While it's disgusting in theory, there may be certain situations were it may be considered [in a very twisted way] a good thing. Of course, the best case scenario would be to just make said people more open-minded, eliminating this situation altogether. But really, that doesn't seem likely any time soon.

p.s. uh.. i don't think i've posted on the AD forums before, so hello. Been visiting the site for a long time. :3

[Graeme]

G'day, smiley7!

Thanks for your post. You've raised an interesting point. As a parent, I can say that I want my kids to have the best chances that they can have. If there were LEGAL and ETHICAL genetic or in-utereo treatments available that enhanced their future, I would have seriously looked at those options. Given that basis, the question returns to whether or not something like this would be legal and ethical. Legalities are easy enough -- if enough people demanded it, the politicians would legislate to allow it. That makes ethics as the defining point. Unfortunately, ethics is largely a personal thing, and so what I consider to be unethical, others won't have a problem with.

As you said, those that would consider it ethical to manipulate sexual orientation are almost certainly the same ones who a gay youth wouldn't want as parents.

On the flip side, if this research is continued and produces results, I can see it putting some religious groups into a very difficult position. This type of manipulation is something they would find abhorent, even if they consider homosexuality to be a sin. The mere fact that it CAN be manipulated would indicate to a large percentage of them that homosexuality is a natural occurence, which should start the process in getting them to revisit their opinions. It wouldn't do that for all of them, but it just might be the odd-ball event that breaks the back of religous bigotry.

Graeme

[DesDownunder]

Before I go any further, I'd like to say that I'm completely against the desire to alter sexuality, the abuse to animals that comes with it, and really everything related and that it stands for.

That said, isn't it the people who would choose to utilize this technology that are exactly the kind of people we want to be kept away from gay people? If they had a gay child, that kid would have a very unfortunate upbringing. While it's disgusting in theory, there may be certain situations were it may be considered [in a very twisted way] a good thing. Of course, the best case scenario would be to just make said people more open-minded, eliminating this situation altogether. But really, that doesn't seem likely any time soon.

p.s. uh.. i don't think I've posted on the AD forums before, so hello. Been visiting the site for a long time. :3

First Welcome smiley7, it is good to have another member to chat with.

I don't know that I quite agree with your reasoning about allowing anti-gay parents to alter their child's sexuality to suit themselves.

One could argue that the best way these people can learn tolerance and hopefully acceptance is to force them to have a gay child. I'm not suggesting we do that of course, but more than one bigot has changed their view when confronted with their gay offspring.

I do agree that a gay child may be exposed to a horrible parenting situation in a number of different ways, but so sometimes, are heterosexual children.

Support services are needed for abused and maltreated children of any sexual orientation.

So too is a wider exposure to tolerance and acceptance for all of us. As you say that is not going to happen any time soon, but I think permitting people to determine their offsprings' characteristics has to be very carefully considered. At the moment I wouldn't like to see that happen anytime soon either.

That's my thoughts anyway.

Please don't be discouraged by the above response to your most interesting post. If the AwesomeDude will allow me to say so I think we value diversity of thoughts in our discussions.

[Rad]

Okay, I really dont know how to make of this news.... is it good or not if a mother can decide if her child gonna be gay or not? have any of you out there at one time in your life thought that you wish you were straight? I know I did. but changing my sexuality now?? Im not talking about those already born, but those who are unborn... will it be better for them if they were born straight? what do you think?

Rad

capitalism, atheism, free beer!

[DesDownunder]

Okay, I really dont know how to make of this news.... is it good or not if a mother can decide if her child gonna be gay or not? have any of you out there at one time in your life thought that you wish you were straight? I know I did. but changing my sexuality now?? Im not talking about those already born, but those who are unborn... will it be better for them if they were born straight? what do you think?

Rad

capitalism, atheism, free beer!

I am certain that most of us at least born before liberation in so many countries would agree that there was a moment in their lives when they wished they were not gay.

However I think to conclude from that, that it would better for the unborn to be born straight (if indeed that is possible) amounts ro a misunderstanding of social manipulation if not, human rights.

Human societies are not consistent. They vary considerably from place to place and time to time.

Societies form differing values from each other. I can imagine the outcry however if it was deemed possible to alter say, skin color before birth purely on the grounds that the child would have an easier life.

The human race is enriched by individuals who have a tough time working out who they are or even "why" they exist. To allow a genetic manipulation of individual preferences in any sphere amounts to an interference that should be deemed unacceptable.

Eventually you see it could be thought to be acceptable to modify the genes that control aggression to avoid another Hitler or Saddam, so the rest of us are neutered of our independent thought so we fit in with what a 'democratic' society thinks will make it better for the society and easier for the individual.

No! That's just not right to me.

I wouldn't even agree to manipulating the unborn so they would accept gay people; which of course is another intrusion that some might consider. (Again, if it was possible).

I look at my life and see some things that I might like to have been different, but being gay is not one I would even consider changing.

I think the whole question of ethics in genetic manipulation demands great care. Intrusion at the genetic level in matters of personal development seems to me to be too high a price to pay for an "easier" existence.

At the moment we have the ability to choose whether or not we believe in free-will or predetermination.

How long before someone decides it will be better for everyone to think the same?

[blue]

For whatever reasons, gay or not-so-straight people are naturally occurring varieties of humanity. We don't know why these traits exist in nature, but we do know they exist -- and some of the reasons we can figure out do make good sense.

So, if it were possible not to have a gay child, or to undo that child's homosexuality, is to ignore something in nature that presumably is there for sound, sensible reasons.

Some traits that humans have are useful in ways we don't know or understand yet. Others might be useful for whatever the future brings for humanity. Others were useful in ancient times and might be useful again.

Who are we to judge? "We don't want that in our child or in any children, ever." -- What if that very thing is needed for people now or in the future? We just don't know. We can't play God or Nature.

-----

Now what about problems that might be genetic? Or what about problems that might be fixed by repairing the genetic structure or cell structure? That would be good, right? Maybe.

We are who we are because of how our physical and mental traits have shaped our experiences and how we are. If my genetic makeup had been changed, I would not have had the life I've had, and I wouldn't be the same guy who helps out or gives advice or unusual posts around here. I would be a profoundly different person. I am not sure that would be better.

[colinian]

OK, click here for the ultimate put-down on the gay sheep bit by Don Asmussen in the Jan 26 SF Chronicle. This is a comic strip that's funny!

Don Asmussen's strip is titled "Bad Reporter" and shows made-up newspaper front pages about the stupidity that surrounds us. The subtitle of his strips is "The LIES behind the TRUTH, and the TRUTH behind those LIES that are behind that TRUTH." Trying to make sense of that sentence is gonna give you a headache!

Colin