Gay Sheep: Wolpe Says to NYT that Researchers Must be Held Accountable for Implications in Media Conversation About Sexual Orientation
Of Gay Sheep, Modern Science and the Perils of Bad Publicity, in today's Times, is an interesting review of the issues presented for gay rights by the sheep research. Our Paul Wolpe:"Paul Root Wolpe, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania and a senior fellow at the university's Center for Bioethics, said that although he supported Dr. Roselli's research, I'm 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 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."
Labels: gay sheep, homosexuality, scientific responsibility
contribute a comment
Comments have been closed for this post.
comments
Wolpe's comments are patently absurd and miss the point entirely. Here's the story. A researcher finds anatomical differences in the brains of ram that demonstrate male preference from those who demonstrate female preference. The finding, which if extrapolated to humans (which would be a stretch) would suggest that male preference behavior is biologically determined and not acquired. It would seem to be a born-again's Christian's nightmare because if God created male preference rams then it must not be an abomination, right? Thus the whole opposition to the gay social and political agenda has no creedance anymore. So this should be embraced by the gay community and abhorred by the Right and just the opposite happened. Rush Limbaugh ahs used this to talk about gays becoming anti-abortiona and gays have cried foul- with fears of eugenics. Wolpw then opens his mouth and blames the scientist saying that he is responisbole for the public response when the whole event has been a polit-agit effort by the radical animal rights group PETA who are upset not about gay sheep, but by the slaughter of 20 or so sheep for this research. Where is Wolpe's ethical concern about the higacking of research outcomes by an animal rights group?
- by David Ansell on Jan 27, 2007 at 12:34 AM | link
I had discussed this issue with my daughters friend a couple weeks ago. I have to disagree with this ideal that sexuality is genetic in anyway. I am a psychartic nurse and have worked with alot of homosexuals and have know some out of work. I have talked to alot of homosexuals that has been abused by the opposite sex and this is their reason for being the way they our sexually. I think when it coms to sexuality its more nuturing then nature that affects it.
- by Lisa Taylor on Jan 31, 2007 at 1:08 AM | link
I do not agree with what they are trying to do. I think if the mind is made a certain wat it should be left alone. I have to say that I think homosexuality is a combonation of nature and nurture. But, I think if someone grows up a certain way they should be able to do what they beleive in.
- by Melinda Walk on Feb 2, 2007 at 2:15 PM | link
I dont think people choose to be homosexual. You see how homosexuals are treated and how some people struggle with their sexuality. Studies have shown that suicide rate for homosexuals are usually higher than heterosexuals, especially among teenagers. People who decide to come out of the closets have to risk alienating their loved ones. Now why would anyone voluntarily choose such fate for themselves? I think the world has bigger problems than homosexuality and research money should be spent on those issues.
- by Althea on Feb 10, 2007 at 9:06 PM | link
I am confused by this article? I feel that as a christian, I don't believe in homosexuality as we see so prevelantly in today's society. I beleive it was Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve? However, as a christian I do not condemn homosexuals, they will have to answer to God on Judgement Day! I have never seen two birds, two cows, to trees of the same sex matting, correct me if I am wrong! But, we read about prisoners in prison for life having same sex partners because of choice- they are only with the same sex to my knowledge, and when some are paroled they return to heterosexual behavior. I will be curious to see the results of this research.
respectfully,
eric
p.s. I would hope that if people could determine if their unborn child was going to be gay(which I find hard to believe) that they would terminate the child. Isn't this like the things hitler was trying to do to create the perfect race???!!!
- by ericg,rn on Feb 12, 2007 at 9:54 PM | link
I think that scientists are messing around with something that they shouldn't be. I think that homosexuality is not a genetic thing, but rather a lifestyle choice by the individual, enforced by the media. Eric, I agree with you that it would be a sad day when parents start terminating births because they think their child is going to be gay!!!! Then I think I could dye in peace, because I would have seen it all!
- by Jennifer Greeley RN on Feb 13, 2007 at 7:01 PM | link