Pro-exgay pundit Warren Throckmorton issued the press release "New Genetics Study Undermines Gay Gene Theory" on Feb. 9. Exgay activist group Exodus International reprinted the press release on its own web site on Feb. 11.
In the press release, Throckmorton — who lacks professional expertise in genetics — apparently misconstrues the findings of a study, "A Genomewide Scan of Male Sexual Orientation," published in the March 2005 issue of Human Genetics.
Brian Stanley Mustanski, lead author of the study, has published a copy of the report online along with a non-technical summary and Q&A that clarifies the scientific jargon and responds to possible misinterpretations generated by sources of questionable scientific reliability and known bias.
Addendum: Curiously, Throckmorton cites a study
that he says supports his own viewpoint. But the latter study, "Exotic
Becomes Erotic: Interpreting the Biological Correlates of Sexual
Orientation" by Daryl J. Bem, speculated that biology and childhood nonconformity to overly rigid societal gender roles may interact in the formation of sexual orientation.
Is Throckmorton admitting that environment alone does not determine sexual orientation?
Having read the paper I would say that that press release belongs in the category bald face lie. He also did not explain what linkage is to the reader which is an important concept in order to understand the findings.
It’s Throckmorton’s job to talk down any study that conflicts with his ideas. I’m surprised it took this long.
What he’s doing is laying the groundwork to shout this study down before it gets too much traction.
Anything less would threaten his bottom line.
Throckmorton commits a common fallacy, which is that failure to prove a correlation between a specific genetic locus and a trait means there is no heritability of the trait. What it means is that they haven’t found the closest/correct locus yet, and no conclusion can be made yet about heritability. I will try to download this paper – it isn’t quite in my field, but close enough.
I was planning on going to the University of Arizona Library and downloading a copy of this article among others.
I’m an engineer, so this sort of thing is not in my field either, but I find that the “Experts” on the religious right typically have profound logical and statistics flaws in their arguments. Its rare to actually need an in-depth knowledge of medicine to understand the implications of these articles, or to understand the misconceptions promulgated by the Right.
That said, I should also say that I’m not much of a fan of most of the biological evidence beyond simple curiosity. While I find these studies and their implications fascinating, human behavior and sexuality, I think, are far too complex to ascribe to biology alone — or for that matter, environment alone or even predominately. Most scientists who propose biologic evidences offer similar caveats in their articles as well.
Besides, if we’re gay because of defective genes, I doubt it would engender much sympathy because we clearly “can’t help it.” Instead, the argument would be that we should spend vast sums of money to find a gene-therapy cure. Just as biology alone cannot compell us to be gay or straight, science alone cannot compell us to be tolerant or reasonable.
In order to understand what the study did you have to understand linkage. One of the laws that Mendel discovered was that of independent assortment. One trait does not effect the emergence of the other. In his case the peas could be wrinkled or smooth. Yellow or green and the smoothness had nothing to do with the color of the pea. This law only holds true under two situations the genes involved in the trait are on separate chromosomes or the genes are on the same chromosome but far apart.
The closer two genes are together on the same chromosome the more likely that both genes will be inherited together. This is called linkage and it can be useful for determining the location of genes relative to one another since the probability of two genes being passed together can be calculated from their distance apart. One of the biggest problems with using linkage as a tool until recently was the fact that you needed lots of siblings in order to get a statically valid sample since you could not determine what parts of the chromosome were shared between siblings. There were ways around it. For instance the rough location of several genes involved with cancer had been determined in the 70ies and 80ies. With the emergence of modern techniques for manipulating DNA as well as computing model geneticists are no longer are happened with that problem.
What he did was choose markers through out the gnome and ask the question is there a gene involved in sexual orientation near by. The higher the mlod score the more likely there is a gene somewhere around the marker.
What the mlod scores are probabilities that the locus is located next to the suspect gene. The greater the mlod score the more likely the marker is next to the suspect gene. A mlod score of less than –2 would mean that the locus you are looking at is defiantly not linked to the gene you are interested in and you can safely conclude you didn’t find it. Mlods greater than –2 would be inconclusive. A mlod scores of 2.2 or greater would be considered suggestive that the locus you are looking at is next to the suspect gene. A mlod of 3.6 would be considered significant and one of 5.4 would be highly significant (i.e. you probably found it).
In there case they found mlods greater than –2 which means you can not safely conclude there is no genetic influence on sexual orientation.
The highest mlod found was 3.45 which is defiantly suggestive that a gene involved in sexual orientation is next to the marker and not far from significant that the marker is next to the gene. The other two high mlod scores were 1.96 and 1.89 which is not far from being suggestive.
Side note there is some debate about the level of significance. Originally the level of significance was 3.0 then it was raised to 3.6 in order to reduce false positives, but at the moment many researches are having great difficulty in achieving 3.6 and there is a suggestion to relax the level of significance a bit as the 3.6 level of significance is based on a model that does not resemble reality.
Given that the question they were asking was are there any genes nearby the marker that could influence sexual rather than is the gene that influences sexual orientation next to the marker, you would not expect a highly significant or significant mlod score. They would have to be very lucky to be able to pick just the right locus with the right sized marker to get such a score.
Mike: Your slant on Bem’s work is creative. Of course I think biology plays a role but in our view, it is not deterministic. Here is the final paragraph from the Bem (2000) study you and I cite:
“In their public statements and published articles, my biologically-oriented colleagues dutifully murmur the mandatory mantra that correlation is not cause. But, as I have commented elsewhere (Bem, 1996), the reductive temptation of biological causation is so seductive that the caveat cannot possibly compete with the excitement of discovering yet another link between the anatomy of our brains and the anatomy of our lovers’ genitalia. Unfortunately, the caveat vanishes completely as word of the latest discovery moves from Science to Newsweek. Surely the public can be forgiven for believing that we are but one NIH grant away from pinpointing the penis preference gene.”
Part of my quarrel with the recent Human Genetics study is that the cautions that Bem advances are not evident in the public statements of Dr. Mustanski. Surely, he is aware that initial mlod scores that look solid have evaporated on closer analysis (e.g., genetic work concerning schizophrenia). The analysis Dr. Ray and I did notes that the suggestive linkages, even if they hold up are likely to correlate to temperamental traits, in essence the raw materials of complex experiences such as sexual attractions. However, as Bem has demonstrated, take these temperamental considerations out of the picture and the genetic correlations fades away. What we are fussing with is the implication of determinism which is the essence of the gay gene theory.
When Dr. Mustanski says: “At this point, the best evidence suggests that genes play an important role in determining if a man is gay or heterosexual,” we think he is going way beyond the evidence and certainly way beyond his recent report. Further, he does not even consider the reports of Bem which are quite germane to the questions he is attempting to address.
In other words, Warren, shout it down before it’s published or you’re going to have to answer for your own bias and lies over the years.
Bem’s conclusion says biology is often overemphasized by some people as a cause of sexual orientation; I’m inclined to agree.
I do not see Bem’s study ruling out biology, just noting interrelationships.
Warren, what you say about genetic correlations may be half-true — and the converse may also be true: Take away biological co-factors, and temperamental and environmental correlations begin to fade.
Much study remains to be done about the interrelationships. And none of these studies address whether sexual orientation, once established, can (or should) be reversed by artificial choice.
Studies of human sexuality are unfortunately being hindered by strawman arguments and accusations that complicate academic discussion and cooperation. Earlier, I questioned exactly which “gay gene theory” it is that you say is undermined, and precisely who advocates it. Beyond this particular strawman, you also accuse certain researchers of one form of determinism — but I perceive you to be advocating an alternate form of (environmental) determinism.
Mike says: “Warren, what you say about genetic correlations may be half-true — and the converse may also be true: Take away biological co-factors, and temperamental and environmental correlations begin to fade.”
Mike: First of all, I didn’t say it first. Dr. Bem did and he has empirical work to support the idea. Further, no empirical work supports your converse thesis. If you (meaning interested readers) have not read thoroughly the study done by Bem, using Michael Bailey’s data, I urge you to.
I agree that the causation of same sex attractions are an independent issue from the ethics of changing them. I believe in client self-determination, others do not.
I do not advocate an environmental determinism. If I did, I would say there is a certain type of environment that invariably leads to same sex attraction. I do not believe this.
Warren,
Thanks for the clarifications.
As for J. Michael Bailey, three authors over at the Independent Gay Forum have reviewed his work:
Dale Carpenter utilized some of Bailey’s data in this 1999 article about gender conformity and rebellion. However, Kim McNabb‘s review finds Bailey’s more recent book “The Man Who Would Be Queen” sorely lacking in science. Paul Varnell found the same book to be built upon stereotypes and anecdotes and deficient in critical self-analysis. In other words, Bailey’s track record of scholarship seems uneven.
Nevertheless, I welcome volunteers to review Bem and Bailey here in detail.
It should be mentioned that there were some serious ethical lapses in Bailey’s “The Man…”
It’s been failrly well discredited as serious science. Calling his scholarship “uneven” is being gracious.
McNabb isn’t the only one at Independant Gay Forum who found Bailey’s book “sorely lacking in science.” So did Dierdre McCloskey “Michael Bailey’s Queer Science” https://www.indegayforum.org/authors/mccloskey/mccloskey1.html whose review was originally published in Reason Magazine. McCloskey’s review, which, admittedly, is a bit snarkey, provides some useful information regarding the background sources of Bailey’s thesis.
It should be evident to any serious scientist that Bailey’s work was not intended to be serious science. A purported academic such as Bailey would know that serious science is done in professional journals, most of which are peer-reviewed. Bailey’s book, on the other hand, was published in the popular press, and was most likely not peer-reviewed. So, the likelihood that Bailey’s book was intended to be serious science is between slim and none.
Press releases aren’t peer-reviewed, either, and it should be evident that Dr. Throckmorton’s press release, noted in the post, isn’t serious science, either. Science-by-press-release is in many ways similar to science-by-press-conference. That reminds me of the press conference in 1989 at which UnivUtah’s Pons & Fleischmann announced their discovery of cold fusion. That discovery has been subsequently widely discredited. Let’s put it succinctly: science by press conference, science by press release, and science by publication in the “popular press,” isn’t science. It may be an attempt to make money–which was clear from Pons & Fleischmann, probably Bailey, and almost certainly Throckmorton, but it isn’t science.
Regarding Bem2000, cited in the post: I’ve read Bem2000 several times over the last few days. I skimmed, but didn’t read in detail, the earlier Bem1996 on the same theme. The earlier publication was much longer, but my impression from the skimming was that evidence put forward in Bem1996 wasn’t significantly different than the evidence put forward in Bem2000. It should be noted that neither of them have any particular concepts–statistical or otherwise–that should be foreign to the reasonably-intelligent reader.
Bem2000, like Bem1996, proposes an interesting theory. Unfortunately, I suspect that the theory isn’t worth very much, for reasons that will become clear. Bem2000 proposes an “Exotic-Becomes-Erotic (EBE) theory of sexual orientation” in which he posits that genetics (“biological variables”) affect only “childhood temperaments.” Those “childhood temperaments” relate to such things as “male gender affirming” (my term) variables such as “aggression and activity level.” (For a reason that I don’t completely understand, researchers–who are predominantly male–don’t seem to be particularly interested in lesbianism.) As opposed to, I suppose “male gender non-affirming” variables such as “relative” (whatever that might mean) “non-aggression or activity level.” Irrespective of what that might mean. Shortly stated, Bem2000’s EBE theory essentially posits that “sexual orientation,” after a bit if a chain, is generally a result of the “childhood temperaments” that he admits are genetically-influenced. Why Bem2000 apparently was unwilling to make the next obvious inference, that the end of the chain, that is, sexual orientation, is similarly influenced by genetic factors, is a mystery, and he really doesn’t provide any evidence to show that it isn’t. Bem2000’s chain clearly originates from a genetic factor–it presumes that the childhood temperament has a genetic basis. But he doesn’t provide any evidence to suggest a break in the chain that might suggest that there is anything other than a genetic background for sexual orientation.
One of the issues that those who presume a nature-vs-nurture (“genetics”–althought that might also include pre-natal environment–vs. environment) dichotomy should seriously consider is the fact that environment (“nurture”) affects genetics (“nature”). That should be evident in regards evolution. On the other hand, it should be clear that “nurture” also affects “nature.” The problem for those who insist on the “nurture vs nature” dichotomy is that animals–including homo sapiens–apparently try to adjust nature to suit themselves. And, if they are successful in adjusting the environment, they will be more successful in affecting the criteria that might be involved in–shall I say?–natural selection. It’s a vicious cycle, probably better discussed elsewhere, but for the purposes of this forum, let’s be clear: the dichotomy between “nature” and “nurture” isn’t really a dichotomy at all.
“But he doesn’t provide any evidence to suggest a break in the chain that might suggest that there is anything other than a genetic background for sexual orientation.”
I think it’s up to someone to provide evidence that that there IS a direct genetic background for sexual orientation. Otherwise, the most reasonable position seems to be a combinational (genetics, biological and social environment) one.
I think it’s up to someone to provide evidence that that there IS a direct genetic background for sexual orientation.
Unless my public school education from the 1960s has failed me, that’s precisely what Mustanski et al have done.
Regardless of Nathan’s complaint, I am still wondering about Dr. Trockmorton’s science by press release.
Raj,
I have to say I don’t see that they’ve done that at all. Warren’s idea of genetics affecting temperamental “raw materials” sounds a lot more reasonable to me.
You wrote above about Bem,
“Bem2000’s chain clearly originates from a genetic factor–it presumes that the childhood temperament has a genetic basis. But he doesn’t provide any evidence to suggest a break in the chain that might suggest that there is anything other than a genetic background for sexual orientation.”
I’m confused about your use of the image of a chain. To me, the chain was necessarily environmental as well as genetic. It began with some genetic basis and then with links which are often not biological in nature. Why need there be a “break” in the chain? Do you mean he needs to provide solid evidence for every link in the chain?
The problem with trying to show that the chain is unnecessary is that it is so difficult to provide evidence of this, that a same-sex orientation in adulthood is completely reducable to genetics. These people are adults now. They’ve gone through billions upon millions of experiences, most of which they probably don’t consciously remember. Everything, right down to their brain scans, have been moulded by their experiences.
You made a good point re: evolution, but I would add that human beings are an extreme case where social phenomena shape our nature. It is my understanding that human babies require not only food and shelter, but social nurturing, and almost certainly from a community of reasonable size. So, beyond shaping our environment, nature and nurture are even more intertwined. Nurture beyond physical needs is now PART of our nature, an assumed provision when a child is born.
Lest anyone wonder, I addressed all of the issues raised by Nathan in my earlier post, and am not going to wast time discussing them again.
The only issue is why Throckmorton pursues science via press release.
Two comments:
Raj says: “Bem 2000’s chain clearly originates from a genetic factor–it presumes that the childhood temperament has a genetic basis. But he doesn’t provide any evidence to suggest a break in the chain that might suggest that there is anything other than a genetic background for sexual orientation.”
Trouble is, Bem does exactly what Raj says he doesn’t do. Via path analysis he shows that the correlation between genetics and self-identified homosexuality disappears when gender non-conformity is removed. Lest we think gender non-conformity is some kind of real, essential trait, let’s remember, behavior is only non-conforming in the context of a culture. In a society (family, town, etc.) where one is not made to feel different for behavior that is “non-conforming” in some other place, the person would not be labeled by self or anyone else as non-conforming. Environment is crucial here.
Concerning science by press release, this is a rabbit trail. We are responding to some of the claims made by Mustanski in his press release. In fact, we have only begun to respond. More is in the works. If you object to our press release, then you really should object to the release from the University of Ill – Chicago that says “Our study helps to establish that genes play an important role in determining whether a man is gay or heterosexual…” His study establishes nothing but rather gives investigators different areas to explore much like Dean Hamer’s work before it. And as we have seen, Hamer’s work established nothing and has not been replicated by an independent lab.
Let’s get something–uh–straight. If Dolly Parton owns the copyright to this work she can give it to whomever she wants. Regardless of Nathan’s bloviating. If Nathan or others of similar ilk don’t like her gift, they have their mechanisms by which they can make their dislike known. The problem that those of Nathan’s ilk have is the fact that there isn’t a whole lot that they can do against her. She knows quite well that she is something of a “fading diva” whose latest offerings have been rejected by country music’s powers-that-be. It’s unfortunate, since she is still better than most of the offerings given by the country music powers-that-be. But them’s the facts.
Regarding Nathan’s “and even King Ludwig of Bavaria did some experimentation” let’s get something else straight. Der Bayerische koenig Ludwig der Zweite war schwul. (Sorry, I don’t do Umlauts in a text messaging window). Die Bayern wissen, das ihr beliebte Koenig Ludwig der Zweite schwul war. Anders als der Nathan.