The Ethics of Gay Sheep

I almost blogged about this earlier in the year when PETA joined the fray, but it was too easy to joke about it, and not-so-easy to see what the real issue was. (Personally, I don't think PETA's issue is the important one.)

These scientists in Oregon are experimenting with gay sheep, seeing what it would take to make them straight. For one thing, farmers don't like gay sheep because they're not good for production. For another thing, with all the arguing about what causes sexual orientation, wouldn't you like to know the answer? But there's another thing. If you could change people's sexual orientation, say by giving them some medicine or performing brain surgery on them, what's the chance some members of our society would not think that was a good idea? See what I mean? It goes somewhere dark.

From the UK's Times Online:

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. Science told: hands off gay sheep

There's a "could be" in that last sentence that carries a lot of baggage. At this time, it's pure speculation, but in the long run, that is the crux of the ethical issue.

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.

I agree with you, it's kind of hard to be too serious about whether sheep have the right to be gay. They do have the right to become sweaters and mutton-chops, but the personal rights of sheep have never been given a very high priority. Dogs, maybe.

So far I'm siding with the researchers. You can do all the twin studies in the world with humans, and some nut is still going to whine that there's not a "one hundred percent correlation," and so nothing is proven. But if animal studies can experimentally flip sexual orientation, that would be some pretty strong evidence that the mechanism is biological, and that it's getting to be pretty well understood.

And remember, this week the FDA told us that cloned meat is just the same as naturally produced meat. In other words, the agriculture industry has a lot of money, and can get the Bush administration to say whatever will be profitable for them. And gay sheep are not good for the agriculture business, they make it harder to breed animals. So if you're going to protest that gay sheep have rights, too, you're arguing against guys who expect to get their way -- politically, this is an uphill battle.

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.

We don't know what the percentage is in humans, really, but about six percent of American men have had sex with another American man, at least once, so if you figured in the shame and stigma aspects, the percentages might be about the same.

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.”

Well, true, there's that. If these guys are successful, it should make it much harder to argue that being gay is a choice. As the guy says, if you think it's biological (ignoring the fact that psychology is a branch of biology) you're more likely not to blame people for having a different sexual orientation from you. So ... it works that way.

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.

So, two problems. Parents could use it the way the Chinese use ultrasounds, they could say, if the baby's going to be gay I want to abort it. Great. Just great. Or it could be implemented as a "cure" for homosexuality, in the womb.

It seems to me the article talks about implementing the treatment on the gay sheep itself, while the speculation about the future talks about treating the pregnant mother. Maybe there're some details that've been left out. If the treatment is applied to the gay subject himself, it is not hard to imagine an anti-gay society that would force people to undergo this kind of treatment, or even a religious group that would encourage their "flocks" to take the treatment.

It could show that God that is greater than Nature, isn't that wonderful?

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.

Let me mention, that describing Michael Bailey as "a neurology professor at Northwestern University" is ... an understatement. Bailey is a highly controversial figure, as this quote would suggest. For instance, he was formally investigated for research misconduct by that university, and they have never said what the result of that investigation was. He's on the hot-seat for a lot of iffy stuff, and is not exactly the expert professor he is made out to be here.

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.”

This is the classic ethical dilemma in science. Once you have this knowledge, what will people do with it? I think it is fascinating and important to understand the factors that influence sexual orientation. But anyone reading this article, or hearing about this research, immediately understands that some people are going to try to use it to engineer a "more perfect" society.

You can choose your explanation, God created or Nature evolved us the way we are today -- either way, we don't really know what all went into the creative/evolutionary decision-making. But there is a clear danger in humans presuming they can outsmart God/Nature, that people know better how to engineer our own species.

Tough one.

As an afterthought, I was just re-reading this, and had this flash. Maybe the research finds out how to switch it both ways. Say you could take a pill and be gay for a day. I'm not real sure people wouldn't do that. (It might just pave the way to a cure for homophobia.)