Homosexuality Researchers Stoic Despite Uproar Over Their Work

Over the past four years, research discoveries of possible genetic origins of human sexual orientation have touched off a tempest of controversy and debate among gay-rights advocates and their opponents, politicians, journalists-- even members of the science community. But investigators in this field, whose studies instigated the commotion, say they find themselves, for the most part, riding in the calm eye of the storm. Following are some recent, widely publicized articles on the biological/genetic basis of homosexuality, as well as some critical reviews of the subject. S. LeVay, "A difference in the hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men," Science, 253:1034- 7, 1991. J.M. Bailey, R.C. Pillard, "A genetic study of male sexual orientation," Archives of General Psychiatry, 48:1089-96, 1991. A. Fausto-Sterling, Myths of Gender: Biological Theories About Men and Women, New York, Basic Books Inc., 1992. W. Byne, B. Parsons, "Human sexual orientation," Arch. Gen. Psych., 50:228-39, 1993. S. LeVay, The Sexual Brain, MIT Press, 1993. D. Hamer et al., "A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation," Science, 261:321-7, 1993. P. Billings, J. Beckwith, "Born gay?" Technology Review, 96:60-2, 1993. W. Byne, "The biologic evidence challenged," Scientific American, 270:27-31, 1994. Tucked away in their labs while their research results grace the front pages of the general press (N. Angier, New York Times, July 16, 1993, page A1, for example) and make the rounds of the talk shows, these scientists say their work goes on as usual, and there has been little effect on the nature or progress of their research. "I get more calls from the press, and probably get invited to give more public lectures than before, but other than that, things haven't changed," says J. Michael Bailey, an associate professor of psychology at Northwestern University. Bailey is one of the two authors of a widely publicized study on male homosexual twins that, the researchers believe, may suggest a genetic link to sexual preference (J.M. Bailey, R.C. Pillard, Archives of General Psychiatry, 48:1089-96, 1991). But they are not totally immune to the furor, these scientists report. Their research, in jumping from relative obscurity onto the national headlines, has raised many professional and personal issues for them. Their feelings about their work and how it is being perceived (and, in some cases, misused) vary widely--except, it seems, in two respects: They all believe their investigations are important and are determined to continue them. Indeed, some see certain positive aspects to all the media attention. "I am pleased that the work is so prominent--it validates its significance," comments Richard Pillard, Bailey's coauthor and a professor of psychiatry at Boston University. "I hope that the high profile would attract more competent scientists--and more funding--to the field," adds Ray Blanchard, a University of Toronto psychologist who also does research on the role of biological and social factors in determining sexual orientation. It is still too early to tell if this will happen, Bailey and Blanchard say. "This subject, like any other, goes through phases of intense public interest and media hype--like right now--vs. other times, when people view it more in perspective," remarks Evan Baleban, a neuroscientist at the Scripps Research Institute who has studied some aspects of sex and sexuality differences in mammals. Although Baleban agrees that "renewed research on the subject of homosexuality is good--if for nothing other than to highlight our own ignorance on the matter," he is critical of the research on several counts, including the potential misuse of the information. "It really worries me that--especially in America--human- rights issues hinge so much on the outcome of such studies," he says. "I am definitely an advocate of gay and lesbian rights but do not believe that people's rights should be linked to biology." "I agree that the issue [of the rights of homosexuals] has to stand or fall on its own," Pillard maintains, "but realistically, this is not the case. There are people who would be more willing to tolerate homosexuality if they believed it was an innate, immutable trait." "In an ideal world, maybe [science could be kept separate], but in practice it would be hard to completely divorce scientific issues from ethical and legal ones," adds Blanchard. "What is interesting is that, despite all the noise over the issue, it has not really changed anybody's opinions," observes Baleban. "For instance, regardless of whether homosexuality is inborn or not, the religious right would say it is wrong. They believe that humans are born imperfect and have to be 'saved' from their sins." Baleban and some other scientists have also been critical of other aspects of the homosexuality studies, especially the interpretation of the data--by the researchers themselves as well as the general public. In one of the most widely publicized studies, National Institutes of Health geneticist Dean Hamer reported that 33 of 40 pairs of gay siblings shared a small portion of the X chromosome called Xq28. Because this proportion was significantly higher than the 50 percent predicted by statistical methods for linkage analysis, Hamer proposed a possible correlation between the genetic region and male homosexuality (D. Hamer et al., Science, 261:321-7, 1993). However, Neil J. Risch, a professor of biostatistics at Yale University who developed the methods used by Hamer, questions the statistical significance of the study. "The bottom line is that, with a small sample size, such evidence is only significant if the single gene has a large effect," Risch says. "Based on [Hamer's] results, I'd have to say the validity of categorization is still open to question." Angela Pattatucci, an associate investigator at the National Cancer Institute and a collaborator of Hamer's directing the studies on female homosexuality, counters, "The fact that the paper used respected [genetic] techniques to deal with a controversial topic gave us legitimacy." Furthermore, she declares, "We have made no claims about causality, or even that the Xq28 region contributes to male homosexuality. We have just said that there is a correlation. Causality is what the media suggested--they went further with the results than we did." Warning against such hype, Baleban says, "People try to draw grand societal conclusions from such studies, which is why I believe that the investigators have to be extremely cautious and conservative in reporting their results, and publicizing them." But Pillard argues that once a paper is published in a scientific journal it moves, for better or worse, into the public domain. After publication, he notes, "We have no real control over what the public thinks. "Anyway, I happen to like controversy." As many scientists point out, psychiatric researchers and others have been interested in the possible biological origins of homosexuality since the late 19th century. Even Sigmund Freud believed that homosexuality was, "at the bottom," a biological issue, notes Pillard. But the idea really catapulted into the public arena with the release of a report on differences in the hypothalamic structure between the brains of heterosexual and homosexual men (S. LeVay, Science, 253:1034-7, 1991). This was followed shortly thereafter by Bailey and Pillard's study and Hamer's report. "For the first time we had actual data relating biological origins to sexual orientation," remarks Bailey. With genetics coming into play, he adds, "studies on sex began [to be] seen as serious." "The reason the subject has gained so much popularity now is that there have been genuine breakthroughs," Blanchard points out. "People had been offering all kinds of environmental explanations for a long time, but these theories failed in the face of inadequate evidence." "I think that the advances in the Human Genome Project certainly have something to do with newfound prominence of the subject of homosexuality," says Pattatucci. "With the development of new technologies like linkage analysis, we now have the ability to look at complex traits and determine their possible genetic underpinnings." Viewing events with a more critical eye, Jonathan Beckwith, a professor of microbiology and molecular genetics at Harvard University Medical School, comments, "So many things have been achieved in genetics and the genome project lately that there is a general environment of acceptability for research trying to relate any and all aspects of human behavior with genes. For example, there has been a recurrent interest in genetics among criminologists." As a member of the Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) group of the Human Genome Project, Beckwith has had a chance to follow these developments closely. "Social issues about sexuality have been in the news much more lately," he says, adding that under such circumstances it is not uncommon for all aspects of a subject to be highlighted, including scientific discussion. William Byne, a psychiatrist at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York who has done some work in the area of sex differences but is best known as a critic of much of this type of research, agrees with Beckwith's viewpoint. "Most of the current prominence of the subject is because of the political climate," he remarks. "But we have to be extremely careful how we interpret our results." One possible outcome of all the public attention that the scientists hope to see is the influx of more funds, and possibly more interested people, to their field. But they agree that it is probably too early to tell if this will happen. "These days, funding is difficult for all of us, no matter what we are studying," says Pillard. The fact that the American Psychiatric Association in 1973 stopped classifying homosexuality as a disease, he observes--with some irony, because he played a major role in persuading the association to change its views--may have served to further limit funding in his field. "As homosexuality was no longer a disease, it became a lower priority," he notes. Considering whether the publicity might actually have a negative effect, Byne quips, "I don't know--at least I don't think so. I have submitted a grant application--so I can answer this question better by the end of February." "It's hard to say if things have really changed," concurs Bailey, who hopes the high profile will generate more widespread scientific interest in the issue of homosexuality. "I think many researchers, especially, are timid about entering the field because they think [other] people make inferences about their sexuality. I've noticed that many male graduate students seem reluctant to work in this area." With increased awareness, he says, he would like to see more students take up the subject for their research. Amid the potentially distracting public clamor and their own personal issues, the researchers proceed with their work. The highest priority at the moment, almost everyone agrees, is to clarify inconsistencies and obtain verification of results already published. Beckwith, for instance, charges that there are "inherent biases" in the conclusions drawn in Bailey and Pillard's sibling report, which contains seemingly paradoxical data. These studies compared the occurrence of homosexuality among both siblings in sets of identical twins, fraternal twins, non-twins, and genetically unrelated siblings. Bailey and Pillard found that the non-twin siblings had a much lower concordance rate (9 percent) for homosexuality when compared with fraternal twins (22 percent) or even unrelated or adopted siblings (11 percent). This observation, Byne and Beckwith agree, is not indicative of the genetic influence on sexual orientation suggested in the paper. "We suspect that this inconsistent result could be due to self-selection during the sampling process," says Bailey, conceding the limitations of their selection method. "We are now trying to repeat the study with more careful sampling of the population." "In any experiment the gold standard is replication. Anybody working on the same problem should be able to get similar results," claims Risch. But so far, he notes, none of the studies has been replicated satisfactorily.

Homosexuality Researchers Stoic Despite Uproar Over Their Work

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of