Gay Gene Discovered–Not Quite!

The science world is all a-buzz with talk of the discovery of a “gay gene.”

Michael Balter of reports:

A new study of male twins, scheduled for presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) in Baltimore, Maryland, today, could help explain that paradox. It finds that epigenetic effects, chemical modifications of the human genome that alter gene activity without changing the DNA sequence, may have a major influence on sexual orientation.

The new work, from Eric Vilain’s lab at the University of California (UC), Los Angeles, is “exciting” and “long overdue,” says William Rice, an evolutionary geneticist at UC Santa Barbara, who proposed in 2012 that epigenetics plays a role in sexual orientation. But Rice and others caution that the research is still preliminary and based on a small sample.

That last bit Michael wrote was key: “But Rice and the others caution that the research is still preliminary and based on a small sample.”  It seems like there is a bit more drama than fact finding in these study results.  These scientists are just working hard to give the homosexual community more justification for immoral and unethical behavior.

If scientists published a study presenting the discovery of a “rape gene” does anybody really think the culture would then embrace rapists and support their culture?

Science offers society many benefits.  We all are blessed to be alive in a time when science has improved medicine, nutrition, transportation, the atmosphere, and so much more.  But science is not the be all and end all of life.  Science does not make ethical decisions for us.

This article in the Atlantic offers some support of the study, but even its author, Ed Yong, is not fully convinced.    He writes:

So, ultimately, what we have is an underpowered fishing expedition that used inappropriate statistics and that snagged results which may be false positives. Epigenetics marks may well be involved in sexual orientation. But this study, despite its claims, does not prove that and, as designed, could not have.

It looks like more studies are needed for science to back up the suggested biological evidence presented here.  Better luck next time!