Gay genetics

[Pah]

Gay genetics

New Scientist vol 184 issue 2469 - 16 October 2004, page 5
Subscription required for complete article

Andrea Camperio-Ciani's team at the University of Padua, Italy, asked 98 gay and 100 straight men to fill in questionnaires about their families. They found mothers and aunts had more children if related to a gay rather than a straight man. Mothers of gay men averaged 2.7 babies, compared with 2.3 born to mothers of straight men. Aunts on the mother's side had 2 babies compared with 1.5 for maternal aunts of straight men (Proceedings of the Royal Society B, DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2004).

That would address the question which was asked in another thread of how the study was structured. though in a incomplete way.

The conclusion is also not quite the same as the Hamer Study. The meaning to be taken from the study suggests that a gene is not responsible for homosexuality per se but for attraction to men in general.

The team suggests that gene variations on the X chromosome make women more likely to have more children, and men more likely to be gay.

But the "maternal effect" could at most account for only 14 per cent of the prevalence of male homosexuality, the Italian team cautions. "Our findings, if confirmed, are only one piece in a much larger puzzle on the nature of human sexuality."

It also recognizes that there is much more research to be done.

-pah-

 

[robtex]

I am afraid Pah that I am woefully ignorant of gay genetic research but I have a comment if you can premit me.

The religous issues that are in complete contrasts to secular sciences efforts on homosexuality is a working breathing living modern day example as to why religion needs to keep its nose out of the securlar sciences. A scientist can be religious, a contribution or granting agency can be religious but the results found through secular analysis are jaded when one interjects with findings with pre-faith that is found on something other than research. I don't know the impact but maybe you do but I have a sneaking suspcision that because some of the funding must come from non-secular institutions there must at least be some pressure applied or felt to accomodate the beliefs of that institution..at that point it is no longer science but instead a mix of science and philosphy with a predetermined polical agenda.