January 25, 2007

Gay Sheep Controversy (BUMPED & UPDATED)

Normally with a headline like that I'd be making a couple of Aggie jokes at the expense of my buddies who went to school in College Station. But believe it or not, there is a controversy raging over certain experiments being conducted in Oregon and elsewhere to determine the differences between gay and straight sheep, and seeking to discover what stimuli might trigger one set of sexual behavior or the other.

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.

Now this research does raise all sorts of questions. First, it could very well help determine the source of homosexuality -- nature, nurture, or choice -- and place it squarely in the "nature" column. But it also raises the possibility of being able to "correct" whatever causes homosexuals to deviate from the biological norm. If such "treatment" becomes available, should it be permitted? Should it be required? And should parents be permitted to make that determination for their unborn or minor offspring -- or should the choice be reserved to individuals who have reached some arbitrarily determined age of reason/consent?

How close are we to reaching the point where such issues need to be considered? Possibly closer than one might imagine.

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.

* * *

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.

Now I'll be the first to concede that I haven't the foggiest notion of how long it might take to translate such work from sheep to human. It seems, though, that we might be talking a matter of a decade or so, given these results. So we need to start giving the matter serious consideration. Should there be research that could lead to a "cure" for homosexuality -- or is it a condition that needs to be cured? Where are the ethical lines here? Are they the same as the political ones?

And I'll be honest here -- I don't have any answers that I am comfortable with.

What do you think?

UPDATE -- 1/25/2006: Since I posted this on December 30, 2006, there have been some more developments. The NY Times offers this new article on the controversy.

Ms. Navratilova, who also received a response from the university, said she remained unconvinced.

“The more we play God or try to improve on Mother Nature, the more damage we are doing with all kinds of experiments that either have already turned or will turn into nightmares,” she wrote in an e-mail reply to a reporter’s query. “How in the world could straight or gay sheep help humanity?”

Now I realize that Ms. Navratilova's long career in professional tennis makes her a leading expert in the field of bioethics, so I'll ask her and other opponents of this research one simple question -- where do you stand on fetal stem-cell research?

Posted by: Greg at 12:29 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 754 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Quite honestly, this is one of those where I don't see a real issue.

It would be silly (and illegal) to require adults past the age of consent to get an anti-homo shot.

Before that, it's the parents' call. Seriously. If they don't like it, the child has no more right to be "born gay" than it does to be born with a hole in its heart or any other correctable pre-birth issue.

As I blogged, I look forward to watching the reversals; the pro-abortion leftists like Martina suddenly screaming that no one has any right to mess with the unborn, the way whackos suddenly finding reasons to abort the spawn of Satan.

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at Sat Dec 30 19:13:07 2006 (ZV1zn)

2 PETA’s big lie:

Just so you know. The false suggestion that the research is aimed at curing homosexuality was made by PETA. Yes, the animal rights group.

Of course PETA has their own motives for receiving press on this story. In fact, PETA heavily edited quotes by the researchers and even fabricated information to generate press coverage. Many weeks ago, a writer in the states looked into PETA false claims. Here’s what he found:

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2006/09/peta_crosses_th.html

Posted by: newmanj at Sun Dec 31 12:17:00 2006 (Zlqn/)

3 Homosexuality is not something that needs to be cured. It isnt a disease or a condition. Gay people are just the same as everybody else, the only differing factor being who we are attracted to.

If parents would be given the choice to "cure" such an "ailment" as homosexuality, this would be going against the concept of unconditional love and engineering a child into being more suited towards a selfish parent. It takes away this childs right to be who they are. People shouldnt be able to mess with an unborn child in the developing stages. If you choose to become a parent, remember its a choice not a right, then you should be prepared to deal with whatever this brings. it would be selfish of you to pre-determine a childs life in any way.

Posted by: Marty at Tue Jan 2 06:51:56 2007 (RbXL1)

4 Marty -- if homosexuality were determined to be the result of a "genetic defect" that could be revered in utero, how would "curing it be any different than curing blindness, deafness, sickle cell anemia, epilepsy, diabetes or mental retardation before birth. What if we found that schizophrenia or bi-polar disorder could be predicted before birth and prevented with some sort of in utero treatment (or even after birth)? Would curing those conditions in the developing stages be a "selfish violation of the concept of unconditional love" and a violation of the right of the child "to b who they are"?

Or is it only homosexuality that you are going to make that judgment about?

And note, I'm not taking a position on the issue -- I'm attempting to probe and test the principles you are operating upon.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Jan 2 07:15:58 2007 (Q6oCX)

5 "Marty -- if homosexuality were determined to be the result of a "genetic defect" that could be revered in utero, how would "curing it be any different than curing blindness, deafness, sickle cell anemia, epilepsy, diabetes or mental retardation before birth."

Those things all cause significant harm to a person's life. Homosexuality does not.

If this research also enabled people to turn straight babies gay, does that mean heterosexuality could be classified as a defect and people should have the right to make their straight unborn children homosexual?

Just because this is seen as birth (if that ever happens) does not make it a defect.

Posted by: James at Tue Jan 2 18:15:47 2007 (SByrT)

6 James -- I've got a friend who is both gay and deaf who would argue that deafness is no more of a defect than his homosexuality, so you may ant to be careful with that "significant harm" argument. After all, how do you judge what is a "harm"?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Jan 2 23:21:51 2007 (aqvhj)

7 "After all, how do you judge what is a "harm"?"

I judge harm as something that could significantly curtail or destroy your life. Maybe deafness isn't in that category, but epilepsy, mental retardation, sickle cell, diabetes, etc. are. I have so many relatives with diabetes and I've seen that destroy them piece by piece. If I told them that my being gay was just as much of a burden as their having diabetes, I'd probably get a very negative reaction.

We could go all over the map about what is a "significant harm". Some people would tell you that not being born white is a significant harm. In some places, being born Jewish is a significant harm. And so on. One of my aunts once told me that if she had a choice, she never would have had girls, because she knows how hard life is for women. One of her daughters is a doctor, she's saved lives, yet she still feels that way. If we lived in a country where everyone got to experiment on their children because of what supposedly does them harm, I think it would be devastating.

Not to mention what these hormones may do. If, under the guise of helping baby boys who are supposedly not "masculine" enough due to their hormones, we give them all kinds of hormones and they grow up to be rageaholics, then we're hurting not only that child, but the people he's around. And all of this because of something which was forced on him at birth.

Posted by: James at Wed Jan 3 03:11:02 2007 (zzYyX)

8 OSU and OHSU’s Big Embarrassment

Thank you for covering this important issue. Jim Newman¯the PR rep for Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU)¯disregards criticism of the unscientific and unethical gay sheep experiments because of nothing more substantial than the fact that it was PETA who brought it to light. PETA sent a detailed seven-page letter to OHSU's counterpart, Oregon State University, with critiques authored by scientific experts and a prominent sexuality research society. Both universities have failed to address the key points that were raised in the letter.

OSU and OHSU certainly wish that PETA had never spoken out so that the experimenters could quietly continue their “research,” which embodies the needless slaughter of animals, an affront to human dignity, and a colossal waste of precious taxpayer funds.

To read PETA’s letter to OSU in its entirety, you can visit:
http://www.stopanimaltests.com/pdfs/LetterToOregonStateUniversitySeptember202006.pdf.

Posted by: Shalin Gala at Wed Jan 3 08:40:42 2007 (7HMiR)

9 If this research also enabled people to turn straight babies gay, does that mean heterosexuality could be classified as a defect and people should have the right to make their straight unborn children homosexual?

Sure.

I have zero problem with people being able to determine the sexual orientation of their child in utero, if that's what they want.

But what I would wager is that far more parents would choose to turn a potentially-gay child straight than turn a potentially-straight child gay.

THAT is why the gay leftists and usual suspects are screaming bloody murder over this.

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at Wed Jan 3 08:59:38 2007 (36oRA)

10 "THAT is why the gay leftists and usual suspects are screaming bloody murder over this."

Some of them are definitely upset about the idea of an unborn child being experimented on just because he might be gay. I'll agree with you there.

Other people may object to any child being used as an experiment. That's basically what this would be. Parents would be subjecting their child to potentially devastating or fatal side effects, going into areas they know nothing about, all because they think their child has to be straight.

What happens if they are able to tell if the hormones are working or not, and if the hormones aren't working, then they choose to abort the child?

What if this causes a world where even after birth, if infants or children or teenagers, adults, what have you, are tested and the hormones didn't take, then these people are put away somewhere or killed?

This reminds me of when China decided to start encouraging women to abort their babies if the babies were girls. The reaction from some people, I'm sure, was, "Ha ha, let's see those leftists and feminists brag about abortion now." But outside of picking a side, this was still a terrible process which should have never happened.

Posted by: James at Wed Jan 3 09:22:41 2007 (02g2f)

11 Shalin -- I agree that tests on animals are counterproductive. We should use a lower form of life, such as left-wingers, instead. After all, sheep and other animals have the redeeming value of being cute, cuddly, and good to eat -- something that cannot be said about leftists like yourself.

And James -- I suggest you peruse NDT's blog before pigeon-holing him. You might be surprised by what you find.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Jan 3 16:23:47 2007 (C9aml)

12 Actually, I've been to NDT's blog. I've lurked there before and posted a few times over the past few days. I don't see how I was pigeon-holing him. I just think that approaching this type of eugenics or experimentation from no angle other than let's-stick-it-to-gay-leftists is a mistake. Ultimately all people will be affected by this. There's too much temptation out there to simply pick a side and not want to vary from that side.

Posted by: James at Wed Jan 3 17:59:09 2007 (02g2f)

13 The diabetes in America became an essential problem, struggle with which is priority problem American Diabetes Association WBR LeoP

Posted by: Leo at Thu Jan 18 04:58:20 2007 (inTET)

14 Nice blog

Posted by: Billy at Fri Jan 19 05:10:34 2007 (LEnui)

15 Homosexuality is quite definitely a life-limiting condition. It seems it's a life-shortening condition as well; a few years ago, the average age of the decedents in the obituaries columns of several homosexually-oriented publications was 48. The national average life expectancy at that time was 74.

"No parent was ever overjoyed to learn that his child was gay." -- Joseph Sobran

Posted by: Francis W. Porretto at Fri Jan 26 06:19:35 2007 (PzL/5)

Posted by: ellaelax-zs at Tue May 19 16:53:46 2009 (sPX5S)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
21kb generated in CPU 0.0059, elapsed 0.0162 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.0111 seconds, 45 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
[/posts]