|
|
|
|
Science told: hands off gay sheep
Isabel Oakeshott and Chris Gourlay
Experiments that claim to ‘cure’ homosexual rams spark anger
http://pageoneq.com/rssfeedstuff/index.php?id=10250
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.
Günther 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.
(\\__/) And if you don't believe The sun will rise
(='.'=) Stand alone and greet The coming night
(")_(") In the last remaining light. (C. Cornell)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
I have just watched the (presumably) final X Men movie. The similarities between "being a mutant" and "being homosexual" struck me
I support the research in sheep to find out that homosexuality is natural, but not any curative work for an ailment I do not have.
Yes, I would pefer a child of mine to be "societally normal", but I would not go out of my way to "ensure" it with prophylactic doses of hormones. I have diseases in my family which may be hereditary. When we bred we knew there was a possible risk of parkinson's disease (cause not really known, heredity not really proven) striking me (my father, his father and his sister died of it) and any child. We discussed it and decided that the living was worth it and the risk was accaeptable. I do not think we would have tampered with the chemical mix in utero.
While I would prefer not to be homosexual I do not wish to be "cured" or to have it switched off.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i first saw X-Men III with my best mate, who's also gay. we were both struck by the homsexual similarities there.
as Storm says, we don't need a cure, there's nothing wrong with any of us
as the American Pyschological Association says too, come to think of it...
Odi et amo: quare id faciam, fortasse requiris.
Nescio, set fieri sentio et excrucior
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
.... have been described as 'sheepshaggers' for at least a century!
But - although played down in the press reports - the probability that what is true for sheep is true for humans is very, very small.
Furthermore, the research is unreliable until and unless it examines the benefit to the sheep population as a whole of a 10% homosexuality rate - and, applying Darwinian theory, the odds that such a benefit exists are extremely high.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
What you need to remember is that no-one cares about any benefit to the sheep population. According to the bible we have been given dominion over them. We may thus "do what we like". Look at Dolly.
No-one cares about any benefit to the human race either. They just, as usual, strive for what they see as perfection. The problem is that my idea of perfection is not the same as your idea of perfection.
While a rather nasty individual with a bad haircut and a laughable moustache practiced extermination with prior eugenics sterilisation programmes, the Swedes practiced eugenics by sterilisation. Sweden forcibly sterilized 62,000 people, primarily the mentally ill in the later decades, but also ethnic or racial minorities early on, as part of a eugenics program over a 40-year period. As was the case in other programs, ethnicity and race were believed to be connected to mental and physical health. While many Swedes disliked the program, politicians generally supported it; the ruling left supported it more as a means of promoting social health, while amongst the right it was more about racial protectionism. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/background_briefings/international/290661.stm
[Updated on: Tue, 02 January 2007 08:43]
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm ... if it does ever become possible to prevent a kid turning out gay by pre-natal interference (which I rather doubt), it will provide an interesting dilemma for the fundi Christians, especially the Southern Baptists.
As I understand it, their opposition to people being gay is that it is a sin because it is a CHOICE (often “lifestyle choice”). If it were shown to be biologically determined, it wouldn’t be a choice, so being gay wouldn’t be a sin (although becoming sexually active might be). In which case, pre-natal interference would seem to be thwarting the “will of God”, and shouldn’t be done.
I've always understood that this accounted for the "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." quoted in the original article.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You make the case very well for the dilema that is going to be evident if and when this thing could ever be proved to work. Personally I dont believe we are "born gay" but that there is probably some kind of biologically based tendency that can lead to someone being gay; however, I also dont believe it can be changed once you find out your orientation.
I would be totally against this sort of genetic engineering mostly because it can lead to unintended consequences which might turn out to be much "worse" than having a gay orientation. Why dont these people just stop trying to put their own agenda in play to interfere with the lives of other people.
Whatever the reason we turn out having attractions to the same sex, so what of it? How does that hurt anyone else? What if you were a parent and went thru this attempt to fix the sexual orientation of your unborn and then found out it caused some sort of problem to them that the so-called "scientists" hadnt thought of?
Since I believe in God and a hereafter, I also think there might be a special place in hell for all those who would meddle with life like they are proposing to do. They should just leave well-enough alone.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... that what is true for a sheep is by no means necessarily true for a man!
Darwinian principles strongly imply that, if one ram in 10 is attrracted to other rams, this benefits the sheep population as a whole. The suggestion that 're-programming' such rams will increase productivity is thus speculative in the extreme. The procedure needs to be studied over several generations of sheep before any valid conclusion can be drawn.
And, of course, if homosexuality did not benefit society as a whole, we would have been bred out of existance generations ago. We have a useful part to play in today's society. Quite a few people have been kind enough to say that my open-minded acceptance has influenced their lives - but that characteristic owes its very existence to the fact that I was born gay.
Let's stand back and be realistic. If the research DOES increase productivity, then from the farmer's point of view it would be a godsend. I doubt that, in the long term, that will happen - but I don't see the justification for demanding that the research should cease. That simply makes us look scared and vulnerable - and there is absolutely no biological or sociological justification for us to feel that way!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
