Thursday, January 25, 2007
Ewe turn if you want to...
Of Gay Sheep, Modern Science and the Perils of Bad Publicity | New York Times | 25 Jan 07
A researcher at Oregon state university probably didn't know what he was letting himself in for when he published work looking at why 8% of rams are gay. Following a Sunday Times article (Science told: hands off gay sheep) and the story being widely reported on blogs, Dr Roselli and his university was deluged with over 20000 complaints from animal rights protesters and gay activists complaining either about his killing sheep, cutting open their heads to attach sensors, or trying to 'cure' homosexuality. The only problem is, almost none of the claims were true, as the Guardian pointed out (Gay sheep? Let's get the facts straight). The researchers did try to turn straight rams gay, but failed.
Now Roselli is fighting back, sending emails in response to the protests, asking blog authors to correct their entries, and stating that "he is as repulsed as his critics by the thought of sexual eugenics in humans. He said human sexuality was a complex phenomenon that could not be reduced to interactions of brain structure and hormones." [NYT]
The question is - should we object to research into sexuality? I don't think so. Of course, understanding what makes us gay might offer those who look for it an opportunity to 'cure' us, and we can and should fight against any attempts to do that. But understanding our sexuality (and sheep's, for that matter) also offers us potential benefits - for example by demonstrating that our sexualities are natural variations on the norm.
Of course, why I'm queer isn't something I want me or my mother to spend time worrying about - but aren't you just a bit curious?
A researcher at Oregon state university probably didn't know what he was letting himself in for when he published work looking at why 8% of rams are gay. Following a Sunday Times article (Science told: hands off gay sheep) and the story being widely reported on blogs, Dr Roselli and his university was deluged with over 20000 complaints from animal rights protesters and gay activists complaining either about his killing sheep, cutting open their heads to attach sensors, or trying to 'cure' homosexuality. The only problem is, almost none of the claims were true, as the Guardian pointed out (Gay sheep? Let's get the facts straight). The researchers did try to turn straight rams gay, but failed.
Now Roselli is fighting back, sending emails in response to the protests, asking blog authors to correct their entries, and stating that "he is as repulsed as his critics by the thought of sexual eugenics in humans. He said human sexuality was a complex phenomenon that could not be reduced to interactions of brain structure and hormones." [NYT]
The question is - should we object to research into sexuality? I don't think so. Of course, understanding what makes us gay might offer those who look for it an opportunity to 'cure' us, and we can and should fight against any attempts to do that. But understanding our sexuality (and sheep's, for that matter) also offers us potential benefits - for example by demonstrating that our sexualities are natural variations on the norm.
Of course, why I'm queer isn't something I want me or my mother to spend time worrying about - but aren't you just a bit curious?
posted by MR @ 4:16 PM 
