Making "Gay" Sheep "Straight:" The Coming Political Wars Over Genetic Engineering
This story about the fuss being raised over experiments to turn "gay" sheep "straight" is a preview of coming attractions of the bitter arguments that will be unleashed if parents gain the power to biotechnologically mold their progeny to suit their own desires or values. According to the story:"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.
"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...
"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.'"
The professor's quote is chilling because it indicates the way in which the tide is flowing. The right to have a child is mutating into the right to have the child we want. Children are to be manufactured to suit our needs more than we are to love them and fulfill their needs.
And I wonder if Navratilova will be branded as "anti science" because she worries that biotechnology could be used to eradicate homosexuality from the human condition? Probably not since such dismissive epithets are generally reserved for those seen as defending "traditional values." However, maybe her more politically correct complaint will open the eyes of would-be new eugenicists and transhumanists to the ethical chaos threatened by hubristically presuming the right to "seize control of human evolution."
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 9:27 AM
13 Comments
13 Comments:
No effin' way!
Look - the human brain develops depending on the amount and type of hormones that it gets surged with in utero. For males there are two surges, the first making the body develop as a male, the second affecting the brain's wiring so that boys have masculine brains. Left without those blasts, the baby develops both physically and mentally more like a girl. The female is the default position for the control, so to speak.
You talk gengeneering babies so that they're "straight" (i.e. delivering hormones that cause the wiring to lead a person to develop one set of tastes vs. another), but that's not going to change every case.
You'll still have some kids who end up transgendered (girls whose bodies developed male, boys whose bodies developed female), you'll still have some kids who prefer their own gender, and you'll have a hell of a time with them because they'll become social outcasts, the "failed" children.
God don't make no junk. We don't have any right to dictate how He decides to mold us. Babies shouldn't be messed with under any circumstances, either to make them "more normal" or just because someone likes designer babies.
Indeed. The point is that we should not tread here. Children should be loved for who they are and become, not because they fulfill our own desires.
PETA’s big lie:
Just so you know. The false suggestion that the research is aimed at curing homosexuality was made by PETA. Yes, the animal rights group.
Of course PETA has their own motives for receiving press on this story. In fact, PETA heavily edited quotes by the researchers and even fabricated information to generate press coverage, Many weeks ago, a writer in the states looked into PETA false claims. Here’s what he found:
http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2006/09/peta_crosses_th.html
Now that is interesting, jim. And if the research, contrary to the reporting in the London Times, is not aimed at making gay sheep straight, it reveals how PETA has no regard for truth or integrity in their zeal.
Be that as it may, it would not detract from my point: Creating progeny to have specified characteristics would be to undermine the very concept of unconditional love for children.
Thanks for contributing to Secondhand Smoke.
*sighs* Looks to me like the Left finally found reasearch they can get pissy about-- is it killing off kids because they're disabled? No.... it's making it so farmers can actually USE more of the rams that drop.
I really gotta wonder if that tennis player really meant that sheep have a "right" to be gay-- wouldn't that imply a right to life, since that's the prime right?
Welcome, Foxfier, formerly Sailorette: I don't think Navratilova was upset about the sheep not being gay. She was upset that the technique might someday be applied to humans.
Animnal liberationists do believe that animals have the right to life. But I don't think N. is an animal liberationist.
Good!
New allies in the fight against untrammeled genetic engineering.
Indeed, Robert B. We need all of the help we can get.
OSU and OHSU’s Big Embarrassment
Thank you for covering this important issue. Jim Newman―the PR rep for Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU)―disregards criticism of the unscientific and unethical gay sheep experiments because of nothing more substantial than the fact that it was PETA who brought it to light. PETA sent a detailed seven-page letter to OHSU's counterpart, Oregon State University, with critiques authored by scientific experts and a prominent sexuality research society. Both universities have failed to address the key points that were raised in the letter.
OSU and OHSU certainly wish that PETA had never spoken out so that the experimenters could quietly continue their “research,” which embodies the needless slaughter of animals, an affront to human dignity, and a colossal waste of precious taxpayer funds.
To read PETA’s letter to OSU in its entirety, you can visit:
http://www.stopanimaltests.com/pdfs/LetterTo
OregonStateUniversitySeptember202006.pdf.
Thanks, shalin gala. But of course PETA thinks ANY use of animals in research is wrong.
Still, this does bring up an interesting question. I posted about the experiment because it dealt with the question of human enhancements or engineering from a different angle. But it is a legitimate question whether this research involves a proper use of animals, from an animal welfare analysis. I don't know the answer.
Thanks Shalin for commenting - it gives us a chance to further demonstate how PETA made up false claims of bigotry and homophobia just to get in the press.
However, before giving that information, I should note that PETA's false claims come 4 years after the research was initially announced by the universities and the real facts were reported internationally. Here's that initial press release that pretty much debunks your claim that the researchers were are trying to work in secret as you claim http://www.ohsu.edu/unparchive/2002/110402sheep.html
I should also direct everyone to a new posting about the Sunday Times article which has now become the source of wild conspiracy theories. I am pleased that a writer has thoroughly investigated the article. As he reports, the Sunday Times article is filled with major errors and false claims. His analysis also raises important questions about the timing of the article which comes almost five years after the research was actually conducted.
Here’s a link to that analysis that anyone who is interested in this topic should read:
A wolf in gay sheep's clothing: Corruption at the London Times
http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/01/a_wolf_in_gay_s.html
As for how PETA the false claim up:
Here's a heavily edited quote Shalin likes to post to try and "prove" it's false claims.
"Stormshak has publicly stated that '[i]f people want to extrapolate [to humans the conclusions that he reaches with regard to altering sheep’s sexual orientations], that’s up to them.' Stormshak’s cavalier attitude shows that he places responsibility for the implications of his work on those who want to apply his conclusions to humans."
Now, here's a link to the full article in the OSU Barometer:
http://barometer.orst.edu/media/storage/paper854/news/2002/11/08/News/Osu-Professor.Studies.Sexual.Preference.In.Sheep-2294650.shtml?norewrite200611131817&sourcedomain=barometer.orst.edu
If you read the entire article, and not the info taken out of context, the message is very clear. The researchers are not exrapolating their research to humans, nor are they suggesting anyone should. It also clearly demonstrates your misuse of select quotes.
Thanks Shalin for commenting - it gives us a chance to further demonstate how PETA made up false claims of bigotry and homophobia just to get in the press.
However, before giving that information, I should note that PETA's false claims come 4 years after the research was initially announced by the universities and the real facts were reported internationally. Here's that initial press release that pretty much debunks your claim that the researchers were are trying to work in secret as you claim http://www.ohsu.edu/unparchive/2002/110402sheep.html
I should also direct everyone to a new posting about the Sunday Times article which has now become the source of wild conspiracy theories. I am pleased that a writer has thoroughly investigated the article. As he reports, the Sunday Times article is filled with major errors and false claims. His analysis also raises important questions about the timing of the article which comes almost five years after the research was actually conducted.
Here’s a link to that analysis that anyone who is interested in this topic should read:
A wolf in gay sheep's clothing: Corruption at the London Times
http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/01/a_wolf_in_gay_s.html
As for how PETA the false claim up:
Here's a heavily edited quote Shalin likes to post to try and "prove" it's false claims.
"Stormshak has publicly stated that '[i]f people want to extrapolate [to humans the conclusions that he reaches with regard to altering sheep’s sexual orientations], that’s up to them.' Stormshak’s cavalier attitude shows that he places responsibility for the implications of his work on those who want to apply his conclusions to humans."
Now, here's a link to the full article in the OSU Barometer:
http://barometer.orst.edu/media/storage/paper854/news/2002/11/08/News/Osu-Professor.Studies.Sexual.Preference.In.Sheep-2294650.shtml?norewrite200611131817&sourcedomain=barometer.orst.edu
If you read the entire article, and not the info taken out of context, the message is very clear. The researchers are not extrapolating their research to humans, nor are they suggesting anyone should. It also clearly demonstrates your misuse of select quotes.
Usually I agree with you on the topics you write about, but here I think you've got it wrong.
Eugenics is about trying to alter the gene pool, right? Either with the semi-victimless hypothetical genetic engineering of the human genome to modify the species (breed a smarter baby), or the Margaret Sanger version of trying to prevent the poor or other undesirables from reproducing, and the modern elimination of "imperfect" humans through pre-implantation testing, abortion, infanticide, etc.
If it turns out that an imbalance of hormones in a pregnant woman causes the child to be predisposed toward homosexuality, or being transgendered, and a noninvasive treatment of re-balancing those hormones is available, then this is no different than any other medical treatment. The best analogy I can think of is the folic acid that pregnant and potentially-pregnant woman are encouraged to take, to prevent neural tube defects. Nothing about the child's genetic structure is being altered; no one is suggesting that, upon discovering a pre-existing hormone imbalance, women might wish to abort their potentially-gay children.
Of couse, the controversy would be whether this is an "imbalance" or just a different point on the continuum of hormone level, and whether a homosexual predisposition is a "birth defect" or a different kind of normality. But I imagine that if research developed to this point, it would also be understood what the cause of the hormone imbalance is. In any case, for people to argue against correcting this condition reminds me a bit of the case of deaf parents who reject cochlear implants for their deaf children by arguing that being deaf isn't a disability. (I would also expect that if this were related to babies predisposed to being transgendered, it would be even clearer that it might be an appropriate medical treatment, since these folks themselves consider their condition to be a sort of "birth defect" that requires remedying through surgery.)
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home