Fwd: Of Gay Sheep, Modern Science and Bad Publicity

[Martijn Meijering]

REPLY TO: D66 at nic.surfnet.nl

Een interessant artikel, dank.

We zullen de komende jaren met een aantal heel moeilijke ethische vragen
moeten worstelen.

De vraag in het artikel (is sexuele geaardheid genetisch bepaald en zo ja
mag een homo-foetus 'behandeld' worden zodat het een hetero wordt of
omgekeerd) zal denk ik nog tot de nodige hoofdbrekens leiden, in allerlei
kringen. En ik vermoed dat die vraag een aantal van die kringen (homo's,
fundamentalisten, moraalridders, medici) intern sterk zal verdelen.

Een ander voorbeeld is of het moet worden toegestaan kunstmatig organen te
'kweken'. Ik las een paar jaar geleden een artikel waarin stond dat het
niet binnen al te lange tijd mogelijk zou zijn om een eicel zo te
manipuleren dat daaruit geen kindje ontstaat, maar slechts een zak
organen, wel met een hart zodat het in leven blijft, maar zonder centraal
zenuwstelsel, hoofdje armen en benen. Mag een vrouw op deze manier
'draagmoeder' worden als ze een harttransplanatie nodig heeft? Of als een
geliefde dat nodig heeft?

En als moleculaire nanotechnologie a la Drexler ooit werkelijkheid wordt,
wordt het helemaal moeilijk. Heel moeilijke vragen, waar bestaande
ideologieen geen antwoord op bieden. Vergeleken met deze vragen is het
vraagstuk van de globalisering nog maar kinderspel.

> REPLY TO: D66 at nic.surfnet.nl
>
>>Date:         Fri, 26 Jan 2007 07:32:12 -0500
>>To: ANTHRO-L at LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU
>>
>>This takes up a couple of themes in other threads, transhuman and should
>>deaf kids be augmented with technology.  A hypothetical, if sexual
>>orientation is in fact shown to be genetic in large part should/will
>> there
>>be a call for a cure in the same manner as for any other genetic
>> differenc
>>usually defined as "disorder" such as some forms of deafness and
>> blindness,
>>or more distinctly such as the "boy in a bubble"  absence of immunity or
>>hemophilia?  And this has to do with gay sheep exactly how?  Read on:
>>
>>NY Times
>>
>>                 Of Gay Sheep, Modern Science and Bad Publicity
>>
>>    By JOHN SCHWARTZ
>>
>>    Charles Roselli set out to discover what makes some sheep gay. Then
>> the
>>    news media and the blogosphere got hold of the story.
>>
>>    Dr. Roselli, a researcher at the Oregon Health and Science
>> University,
>>    has searched for the past five years for physiological factors that
>>    might explain why about 8 percent of rams seek sex exclusively with
>>    other rams instead of ewes. The goal, he says, is to understand the
>>    fundamental mechanisms of sexual orientation in sheep. Other
>> researchers
>>    might some day build on his findings to seek ways to determine which
>>    rams are likeliest to breed, he said.
>>
>>    But since last fall, when People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
>>    started a campaign against the research, it has drawn a torrent of
>>    outrage from animal rights activists, gay advocates and ordinary
>>    citizens around the world all of it based, Dr. Roselli and colleagues
>>    say, on a bizarre misinterpretation of what the work is about.
>>
>>    The story of the gay sheep became a textbook example of the
>> distortion
>>    and vituperation that can result when science meets the global news
>>    cycle.
>>
>>    The news media storm reached its zenith last month, when The Sunday
>>    Times in London published an article under the headline Science Told:
>>    Hands Off Gay Sheep. It asserted, incorrectly, that Dr. Roselli had
>>    worked successfully to cure homosexual rams with hormone treatments,
>> and
>>    added that critics fear that the research could pave the way for
>>    breeding out homosexuality in humans.
>>
>>    Martina Navratilova, the tennis star who is both openly gay and a
>> PETA
>>    ally, wrote in an open letter that the research can only be surmised
>> as
>>    an attempt to develop a prenatal treatment for sexual conditions.
>>
>>    The controversy spilled into the blog world, with attacks on Dr.
>>    Roselli, his university and Oregon State University, which is also
>>    involved in the research. PETA began an e-mail campaign that the
>>    universities say resulted in 20,000 protests, some with language like
>>    you are a worthless animal killer and you should be shot, I hope you
>>    burn in hell and please, die.
>>
>>    The news coverage, which has been heaviest in England and Australia,
>>    focused on smirk and titillation and, of course, puns. Headlines
>>    included Ewe Turn for Gay Rams on Hormones and Hes Just Not That Into
>>    Ewe.
>>
>>    In recent weeks, the tide has begun to turn, with Dr. Roselli and Jim
>>    Newman, an Oregon Health and Science publicist, saying they have been
>>    working to correct the record in print and online. The university has
>>    sent responses to senders of each PETA-generated e-mail message.
>>
>>    Dr. Roselli, whose research is supported by the National Institutes
>> of
>>    Health and is published in leading scientific journals, insists 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.
>>
>>    On blogs where attacks have appeared, the researchers point out that
>>    many of the accusations, like The Sunday Timess assertion that the
>>    scientists implant devices in the brains of the sheep, are simply
>> false.
>>
>>    The researchers acknowledge that the sheep are killed in the course
>> of
>>    the research so their brain structure can be analyzed, but they say
>> they
>>    follow animal welfare guidelines to prevent suffering.
>>
>>    The authors of the Sunday Times article, Chris Gourlay and Isabel
>>    Oakeshott, referred questions to a managing editor, who they said was
>>    traveling and could not be reached.
>>
>>    Dr. Roselli and Mr. Newman persuaded some prominent bloggers,
>> including
>>    Andrew Sullivan, who writes an online column for Time, to correct
>>    postings that had uncritically quoted The Sunday Timess article. They
>>    also found an ally in the blog world: a scientist who writes under
>> the
>>    pseudonym emptypockets and has taken up Dr. Rosellis cause. The
>> blogger,
>>    who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he said a public
>> stand
>>    could hurt his career, said he had been cheered by the number of
>>    bloggers who dropped their opposition when presented with the facts.
>>
>>    Ms. Navratilova, who also received a response from the university,
>> said
>>    she remained unconvinced.
>>
>>    The more we play God or try to improve on Mother Nature, the more
>> damage
>>    we are doing with all kinds of experiments that either have already
>>    turned or will turn into nightmares, she wrote in an e-mail reply to
>> a
>>    reporters query. How in the world could straight or gay sheep help
>>    humanity?
>>
>>    In an interview, Shalin Gala, a PETA representative working on the
>> sheep
>>    campaign, said controlling or altering sexual orientation was a
>> natural
>>    implication of the work of Dr. Roselli and his colleagues.
>>
>>    Mr. Gala, who asked that he be identified as openly gay, cited the
>> news
>>    release for a 2004 paper in the journal Endocrinology that showed
>>    differences in brain structure between homosexual and heterosexual
>>    sheep.
>>
>>    The release quoted Dr. Roselli as saying that the research also has
>>    broader implications for understanding the development and control of
>>    sexual motivation and mate selection across mammalian species,
>> including
>>    humans.
>>
>>    Mr. Newman, who wrote the release, said the word control was used in
>> the
>>    scientific sense of understanding the bodys internal controls, not in
>>    the sense of trying to control sexual orientation.
>>
>>    Its discouraging that PETA can pick one word, try to add weight to it
>> or
>>    shift its meaning to suggest that you are doing something that you
>>    clearly are not, he said.
>>
>>    Dr. Roselli said that merely mentioning possible human implications
>> of
>>    basic research was wildly different from intending to carry the work
>>    over to humans.
>>
>>    Mentioning human implications, he said, is in the nature of the way
>> we
>>    write our grants and talk to reporters. Scientists who do basic
>> research
>>    find themselves in a bind, he said, adding, We have been forced to
>> draw
>>    connections in a way that we can justify our research.
>>
>>    As for whether the deaths of the sheep are justified, he said, why
>> would
>>    you pick on a guy whos killing maybe 18 sheep a year, when theres
>> maybe
>>    four million killed for food and clothing in this country?
>>
>>    Paul Root Wolpe, a professor of psychiatry at the University of
>>    Pennsylvania and a senior fellow at the universitys Center for
>>    Bioethics, said that although he supported Dr. Rosellis research, Im
>> not
>>    sure I would let him off the hook quite as easily as he wants to be
>> let
>>    off the hook.
>>
>>    By discussing the human implications of the research, even in a
>> somewhat
>>    careful way, Dr. Roselli opened the door to the reaction, Dr. Wolpe
>>    said, and he has to take responsibility for the public response.
>>
>>    If the mechanisms underlying sexual orientation can be discovered and
>>    manipulated, Dr. Wolpe continued, then the argument that sexual
>>    orientation is based in biology and is immutable evaporates.
>>
>>    The prospect of parents eventually being able to choose not to have
>>    children who would become gay is a real concern for the future, Dr.
>>    Wolpe said. But he added, This concern is best addressed by trying to
>>    change public perceptions of homosexuality rather than stop basic
>>    science on sexuality.
>>
>>//     Unsubscribe/suspend (NOMAIL), INDEX or DIGEST modes...       \\
>>|  http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=anthro-l&A=1  |
>>\\   Archives: http://listserv.buffalo.edu/archives/anthro-l.html   //
>
> **********
> Dit bericht is verzonden via de informele D66 discussielijst
> (D66 at nic.surfnet.nl).
> Aanmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het
> tekstveld alleen: SUBSCRIBE D66 uwvoornaam uwachternaam
> Afmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het
> tekstveld alleen: SIGNOFF D66
> Het on-line archief is te vinden op:
> http://listserv.surfnet.nl/archives/d66.html
> **********
>


--
Martijn Meijering
Meijering & van Sterkenburg
Niels Bohrweg 11-13
2333 CA LEIDEN
The Netherlands
phone: +31-(0)71-5282833
fax:   +31-(0)71-5282834

VAT NL1754.15.407.B.01
KvK Rijnland 28085728

**********
Dit bericht is verzonden via de informele D66 discussielijst (D66 at nic.surfnet.nl).
Aanmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SUBSCRIBE D66 uwvoornaam uwachternaam
Afmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SIGNOFF D66
Het on-line archief is te vinden op: http://listserv.surfnet.nl/archives/d66.html
**********