Gay gene testing

[heatseeker]

www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2559021/Being-gay-DNA-researchers-claim-controversial-new-study.html

I don't know why they are wasting time or money researching this no good can come from it. I think it is a backward step in thinking and terminating a baby on the grounds of its apparent sexuality is a nasty concept.

As for antenatal testing - the NHS would never do that. It is unethical.

Well I agree it wouldn't happen any time soon. But screening for Downs is pretty much part of the NHS overall doctrine. Some of us with DCs on the autistic spectrum are also quietly anxious about antenatal testing for ASD which is apparently only a few years away. Never say never.

I think the accusations on this thread that the scientists involved are doing this research to earn money from a test are very unfair. There is absolutely no suggestion that they are developing a test or did the research with the intention of doing so. In fact they say in this article that the chances of such a test being reliable are poor anyway because it looks like environmental factors have a bigger influence.

They are not wackos, OP, as you so charmingly call them. Is it because they are American that you assume they are? They are medical researchers in a university that, if you knew anything about American HE, which it sounds like you don't, you would know is a legit, top-tier research institution. Believe it or not most research scientists do stuff simply to expand the range of human knowledge about the natural world.

I don't know whether sexual orientation is determined by biological or social factors and to be honest I don't really care that much.

Even if being gay is 'a lifestyle choice' so what? If that is how someone wants to live their life and it makes them happy, good for them.

I can see why for the scientists interested in the wider issue of gene theory it is an interesting, but unless you are a raging homophobe, dead set on 'curing' gay people this is really a non-issue.

I don't think scientists are raging 'homophobes' I think they are tryng to unravel the nature/nurture debate which is about widening knowledge of all human behaviour - men/women gay/straight/bi/trans.

look at how much time is spent debating girl/boy behaviour on here. it's relevant to everyone.

As I said in my post ubik1, I can see why it is scientifically significant.

Can you see where I accuse the scientists of being homophobic (here's a massive clue you won't be able to, because I didn't.)

Haven't read the article but my son is friends with identical twins - one is gay the other is straight. Yet they have the same genes- go figure..

Is the gay one left handed nostress?

Lets assume for a second there is a gay gene in the same way there is a tall gene or a left handed gene.

What possible benefit to the child can there be in testing for it? Do they test for left handedness or tall? No, so why test for being gay?

I think there is a gay gene. I have it,I don't want it. I know I am a lesbian, I know I would adore to be with a woman. I choose to be straight, married with children. Although we have as little sex as possible as it turns my stomach.
I don't think we should test for it in the same way I don't think there should be gender testing as sadly I think there are more people who would terminate for sexuality than those who do so because if the wrong sex.

I have no idea! I'll ask when he gets back from school!

It doesn't surprise me in the least that we want to test for a gay gene with the probability of it leading to abortions. We can be a nasty species. We won't rest until we've wrecked this planet through selfishness or in pursuit of 'perfection'.

In some respects I can see that the research could be helpful but not if it falls into the wrong hands. Aborting babies because of gender or sexuality is just plain evil.

There is no one tall gene or left handed gene though. There are very few things that are controlled by one gene. We're not even at the point where we can look at someone's DNA and tell what ethnicity they are let alone how tall they are or if they're left handed.

Biology is way more complicated than people realise.

itscockyfoxagain- How sad. Are you happy though? Why not pursue? I know this happens/ed a lot. My dad's friend (gay) got married in the 70s. After 10 years and two kids they split up and both came out. It worked for them I guess. Neither of their kids are gay! Now they are both in happy gay relationships and are still friends.

Does your husband know?

Can think of many more ways this money can be spent on genetic research. Killer genetic conditions, cystic fibrosis, Neurofibromatosis to name but a few.

Wouldn't care less if DS was gay but its horrific watching him suffer everyday with no hope of a cure.

YoureBeingASillyBilly, I think the main advantage is to counter the homophobes.

FoxesRevenge, there is no realistic chance of it being used for that and it wasn't the purpose of the research. They make it plain that it's not simply one gene that you can test for.

All the test results could say is that the person has maybe a 15-20% (educated guess) chance of being gay. You'd have to be pretty damn homophobic to abort on that basis.

nostress
I could be happier but I am happy enough. I couldn't put my parents and grandparents through the shock.
I have had a short fling with a woman before I I married so its not an imagined fantasy.
I have never outright told my husband but he knows because he refers to it.
For the moment this is best for everyone, I don't want to be gay, I was thirteen when I realised I am. If there comes a point in time when I am brave enough to admit it out loud things might change. I just couldn't throw everyone's life into chaos though.

Most fundamental Christian homophobes are also rabid anti-abortion misogynists. What a dilemma for them.

Phyllis Of course they are not wacko because they are American I called them 'wacko' for wasting research on gay genes when they could be doing something more important.

I don't think there is a gay gene, but I do think sexuality is a spectrum and you can move along it sometimes from one extreme to another and there can be triggers for this. I didn't have any attraction to women until my mid 20s now a couple of years on I've identified as bisexual. I don't have any attraction to men at all though so there is every chance I'm a lesbian, but I'm married with children, I love my husband and sex with him doesn't repulse me at all, I wouldn't want to sleep with any other men though.

Are you saying that scientists should never do research just because they find it interesting and to add to human knowledge? Plenty of useful stuff gets discovered when scientists are researching things that have no practical application and plenty of things end up having a practical application down the line when technology catches up or someone puts another piece of the puzzle together.

I study retroviruses because I find them interesting. I'm not going to cure AIDS with my current research but someone else might use something I find or I might use the skills I'm developing now to cure AIDS at some point in the future.

Also, if this study makes just one homophobe re-evaluate their position then it is not "a waste of research".

I don't think finding out there is a gay gene will ever truly change the mind of a homophobic person. Just the same as it has never really helped with the stigma of bipolar disorder, some people's view of mental illness or sexuality will never change.

heatseeker You're not the arbiter of what individual scientists should work on. Why shouldn't they work on something that is clearly important and interesting to them? We wouldn't have made half of the scientific advancements we have if individuals hadn't pursued lines of research that they personally found interesting and significant. There's room in the word for all kinds of scientific knowledge.

You do realise, don't you, that this team are primarily psychologists? That asking them to come up with curative therapies for disease would require them to have totally different skill sets and knowledge bases of the kind that are only acquired after decades of study? That it would, in fact, be a bit like asking a concert pianist to take up Olympic hurdling?

I hate this attitude that if you're not curing cancer or something equally "worthy" your work is sneered at. How are you coming along with some suitably "more important" research, then, OP?