Apparently, religious fundamentalists aren't the only ones willing to turn their backs on science because it profoundly disturbs their sense of the way things should be:
SCIENTISTS are conducting experiments to change the sexuality of “gay” sheep in a programme that critics fear could pave the way for breeding out homosexuality in humans.
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.
Navratilova defended the “right” of sheep to be gay. She said: “How can it be that in the year 2006 a major university would host such homophobic and cruel experiments?” She said gay men and lesbians would be “deeply offended” by the social implications of the tests.
But the researchers argue that the work is valid, shedding light on the “broad question” of what determines sexual orientation. They insist the work is not aimed at “curing” homosexuality.
Yikes. In "Frankenstein," widely regarded as the first true work of science fiction, Mary Shelley presented us with the greatest theme of that genre: What do we do when our science advances more quickly than our moral capacity to deal with the changes we have forged? We are living in an age in which science fictions are rapidly becoming science facts. All those what-if debates that once were enjoyable mental exercises for late-night college-dorm sessions suddenly have a little more urgency.
Let's assume that gayness really is a "hormonal balance" issue that can be "adjusted" in pregnant women. That would make it just one of many human conditions we can control in the womb as we advance in such areas as genetics and nanotechnology. What should we do about it?
I think a blanket prohibition against "playing God" with unborn children would be pretty hard to defend. If it's right to do certain things for those outside the womb -- try to cure cancer, say, or beat back schizophrenia -- what's the moral objection to trying to take care of it in the womb? How many would object, and on what grounds, if the gene for sickle cell anemia or Mongoloidism or autism could be eliminated or gotten around? There is a certain subset of deaf people who have developed a whole culture of deafness; they celebrate it and even resent other deaf people who try to lip read or, heaven forbid, get an implant instead of using sign language. They would no doubt object to eliminating deafness at the genetic level, which seems perverse to me. Hoping that children keep being born without one of their senses, just to preserve a culture.
If we don't have a blanket prohibition, then we have to decide when to make changes and when not. Most people cringe, I suspect, at the thought of people using genetic engineering to create "perfect" children -- all super intelligent, able to play the piano at 4, creative, kind, all blue-eyed blonds, probably. Never mind even getting to the point where we have such a lack of diversity that the gene pool is threatened. It would be a pretty boring world long before that point.
Where does gayness fit in there? The debates we've been having, as complicated as they have seemed, have been realtively simple up to now: Gayness is either an innate condition, which leads to one set of beliefs, or it is learned behavior, which leads to a differet set. This will require a lot of people on both sides to back up and rethink the thing a little. We're not talking about people who are currently gay and whatever made them that way. We are talking about future generations.
One thing, though. I will add to the list of things I mentioned in an earlier post that I remain pretty sure of: Sheep do not have a "right to be gay."
