Civil Commotion

Dawn and I are staying close to home this long weekend, but have a full agenda. Back next week.

The Washington Post takes-up the recently released Science study, with more coverage of the science than the New York Times, and less of the controversy surrounding publication of the study.

There is no one gene that determines a person’s sexual orientation, but genetics — along with environment — play a part in shaping sexuality, a massive new study shows.

Researchers analyzed DNA from hundreds of thousands of people and found that there are a handful of genes clearly connected with same-sex sexual behavior. The researchers say that, although variations in these genes cannot predict whether a person is gay, these variants may partly influence sexual behavior.

Though I sympathize with the reservations that some of the researchers felt about publication, I think that Science made the right editorial decision. The New York Times and the Washington Post are among the most influential newspapers in the world and their coverage, though necessarily not-very-detailed if it is to be comprehended by the generality of readers, will inevitably help to publicize the complexity of sexuality and its innate characteristic.

I am a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and Science is one of the (paywalled) member benefits; it will doubtless show up in the mail in the next day or so. I’ll try to share more of the conclusions here after it has arrived and I’ve had some time to digest it.

Would you be surprised to learn that the Bible Belt, with its love-love-love, is the worst place to work?

Though it has been well-known for years by people who read topical blogs devoted to sexuality-related issues, and science news, a lot of people haven’t a clue that science has made a lot of progress in understanding sexuality. Specifically, it isn’t widely known that science has learned that human sexuality is shaped by both genes and the environment; in particular, homosexuality results from the encounter of a specific set of genes with a particular chemical environment in the womb. So as far as I’m concerned, then, this feature in the New York Times is a welcome development.

Unfortunately, the feature pays little attention to the science per se, and a lot of attention to the controversy surrounding the study’s publication.

Even before its publication Thursday in the journal Science, the study has generated debate and concern, including within the renowned Broad Institute itself. Several scientists who are part of the L.G.B.T.Q. community there said they were worried the findings could give ammunition to people who seek to use science to bolster biases and discrimination against gay people.

One concern is that evidence that genes influence same-sex behavior could cause anti-gay activists to call for gene editing or embryo selection, even if that would be technically impossible. Another fear is that evidence that genes play only a partial role could embolden people who insist being gay is a choice and who advocate tactics like conversion therapy.

“I deeply disagree about publishing this,” said Steven Reilly, a geneticist and postdoctoral researcher who is on the steering committee of the institute’s L.G.B.T.Q. affinity group, Out@Broad. “It seems like something that could easily be misconstrued,” he said, adding, “In a world without any discrimination, understanding human behavior is a noble goal, but we don’t live in that world.”

I don’t doubt that, within a day or so, my e-mail will be filling up with urgent alerts that SCIENCE HAS PROVED LEVITICUS IS RIGHT!! et cetera, et cetera. Yes, gleeful morons incapable of nuance will misconstrue the findings.

But: Morons are like the poor — they have always been with us, and they will always be with us. That hasn’t stopped human progress in the past, and it shouldn’t be an excuse for delaying progress now.