From: cbe@unlinfo.unl.edu (cbe)
Subject: Re: Genes, Categorical Hypostatization, and You
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 06:17:49 GMT

In a fascinating and considerate discussion, Gene Smith and Herschel 
Browne discuss the ramifications of assessing the origins of 
homosexuality within the nature/nurture context.  At one point Browne 
attributes to scientism (sic?) the idea that "...we [scientists 
apparently] are incapable of making fundamental error because we are 
objective."

I am unaware of any scientist who has thought at any length about 
their discipline who would defend this attitude.  That which appears 
to define the difference between the sciences and the humanities is 
not objectivity; certainly there are "objective" historians, 
philosophers or art critics. [Quotes applied to emphasize no human 
being is capable of being entirely objective.]  What scientists have 
is an independent test of their ideas.  That is why the laboratory has
sometimes been called the Supreme Court of Science.  Without entering 
into meanings of reality, that reality accepted by scientists and most
pedestrians provides a severe limit on what the scientist can 
hypothesize.  Einstein observed that one ugly fact could destroy a 
beautiful theory.  While Clio's art may have it's Promethean aspect, 
theories of history cannot be as easily annihilated.  Scientists are 
keenly aware of the difficulties of objectivity.  Only the necessary
testing of their pet theories against the supreme indifference of 
nature differentiates the scientists from their learned compatriots in
the humanities.  Any who have indulged in the scientific enterprise 
know how subjective it can be.

That said, scientific inquiry can become problematic when it addresses
questions which have great societal implications.  And here the 
question about the origins of homosexuality serves as an example.  To 
seek a physiological basis is, per se, a valid scientific activity.  
That it is loaded with other implications brings the enquiry into 
realms of ethics, politics and art.  As a human being the scientist  
should be aware of these implications and attempt to frame the study 
in their light.  Perhaps, it may even become clear that the 
investigation should be abandoned because of the harm it may cause 
regardless of the truth of the scientific result.  No modern scientist
should be unaware of the societal ramifications of their studies.

But in the abstract, ignoring these extra-scientific issues, the study
of the physiological basis of sexual orientation should not be 
dismissed.  Naively, something so basic to the survival of a
species would seem to be somehow innate.  Certainly in lower life forms, 
mating and copulation can be induced by the presence of a simple 
pheremone.  Humans like to believe they are free of such programming 
by nature, but evidence grows that they are not.  For example, certain
schizophrenias, obsessive-compulsive behaviors and phobias have been 
found to be based on chemical (hormonal) imbalances in the brain or in
flawed chemical receptors.  While we focus on pathology of disease, we
should not forget that the "normal" is only the proper functioning of 
these same mechanisms.

Any who have been under the influence of drugs are well aware of the 
"reality" which they can create.  These relatively simple chemicals 
have profound effect upon us.  Is it so unreasonable to think that 
perhaps hormonal influences, for example, at a certain stage of fetal 
development could dictate later inclinations of sexual orientation?  
Naturally, being the incredibly malleable creatures we are, the 
influence of culture can be extreme and may well suffice to transform
behavior from the underlying sexual orientation.

The point is that there should be differentiation between the social 
or ethical propriety of a scientific investigation into the 
physiological origins of sexual orientation and the investigation 
itself.  The physicist, Shockley, embarked on a study of the nature 
of genetic differences betweeen the races.  Apart from the naivete 
regarding the wisdom of such a study, it was bad science.  Were it 
possible to *do* the science, then qua science the question posed was 
valid.  Even then, whether it should be pursued is a question that 
must be dealt with outside of science.

Where does that leave us regarding homosexuality?  My prejudice is 
that scientific "truth," if determinable, should always be found and 
confronted.  The question of how society deals with such results is in
the province of the humanities and politics.  Either humankind will 
grow in the confrontation or it will falter.  If it be the latter, 
then I subscribe to the view of Eiseley that there will be, in a few 
million years, yet another sentient species that may be more capable of 
dealing effectively with the universes in which they live.  This 
"Darwinism" applied to humanity is certainly appalling to many but, on
balance, it appears to me that nature has invested little in us and 
that, while we have shown much promise, our grasp most often exceeds our
reach.  

In my opinion, if there is a physical origin for sexual orientation it
should be determined.  I believe it highly unlikely that such complex 
behavior could be other than multigenetic in origin and therefore not 
susceptible to interference.  But I do suspect that we are indeed 
generally "programmed" and I would be fascinated to find how nature 
does it.  However, it is clear that since we are learning creatures, 
that such predispositions can be severely modified by culture. [Note 
the extreme objectivity of the preceeding.]

Should we avoid questions which may rend the fabric of society?  Or in
their confrontation, will we be able to achieve increased understanding 
and realization of our humanity?

Colburn Eigen                       H|u> = E|u>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality