Inherited Behaviour

[Denny Crane!]

I'm referring to my psychology textbook, in fact, whose conclusions I somewhat misremembered. It cites the following studies to back up its points:

• Various studies by Bailey et al. (1991, 1993, 1995, 2000) and one by Kendler et al. (2000) studied correlations between the sexual orientations of identical and fraternal twins of homosexuals (not separated at birth). In the earlier studies, based in America, roughly 50% of a homosexual's identical twins but only 20% of their fraternal twins shared their orientation. The 2000 studies were international and found "somewhat lower rates of sexual similarity", but still with identical twins more similar than fraternal.
• More striking is a 1995 study by Zhang and Odenwald. By transplanting a single gene in fruit flies, they were able to make them show homosexual behavior
• Studies by Dunter, 1976 and 1988, and Money, 1987, manipulated prenatal conditions in rats and sheep to cause homosexual behavior in them.

LeVay's 1991 study on differences in brain structure between homosexuals and heterosexuals is cited, but not in connection to genetics. No study by anyone named Hamer is cited anywhere in the book.

Hamer did a study in 1993 on 40 pairs of brothers I think of the top of my head, hamer is a behavioural geneticist who has also tried to prove there is god gene if you are interested.

A single study criticizing the state of research does not, of course, invalidate that research. I can't comment further on that particular study because I can't figure out how to access the full text. (By the way, if you want to Google science journals and whatnot, Google Scholar is probably what you want, not regular Google.)

Thanks

My psychology textbook doesn't mention that study. It does mention the 2002 studies by Larkin et al. and Rosselli et al., and the 1992 study by Allen and Gorski, all three of which painted a similar picture: there are, on average, brain-structure differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals. This should hardly be surprising if one discards the notion of Cartesian dualism.

Anyway, out of curiosity, where did you learn about these various studies? I learned about them by reading through my textbook in an introductory psychology course last semester.

My uncle is a microbioligist with an interest in behavioural genetics, its not something I have spent a great deal of time on though we have spent a few hours debating the issue (me listening him talking, not much of a debate more like a socratic dialogue ) and a few books were recommended of which I have one.

So I am going to slowly back off in the face of much more well educated and qualified subject as with the subject I shouldn't try for an indepth look at the science as its not something I am qualified to talk about and I should not even be attempting to debate with you on....

.......but at the ethical problems posed by an increasing awareness of the function of genes and the manipulation.

For the sake of the arguement if there is conclusive proof that there is a gene that has strong significance in making a person homosexual would you think it was acceptable for that gene to be screened for and possibly removed by prospective parents. I have to say it is things like this that make me think gene screening and selection should be very heavily regulated. It starts with choosing the eye colour and will progress.

More pertinent will become the issues of a social elite, the ones that can afford gene screening and the ones that can't. The discrimination could start very easily if those records were made easily accessible for example health insurers would want to know who has been screened to remove high probabilities of cancer or blood pressure etc.

These are the sorts of questions that I think it is ok for someone like me to debate because ultimatly these issues will be relevant to us all with the current rate of advancement in genetics so we should try and at least partially understand the complex questions that will be raised.

(Cheers garb very interesting stuff)

Peter

[Simetrical]

For the sake of the arguement if there is conclusive proof that there is a gene that has strong significance in making a person homosexual would you think it was acceptable for that gene to be screened for and possibly removed by prospective parents. I have to say it is things like this that make me think gene screening and selection should be very heavily regulated. It starts with choosing the eye colour and will progress.

I can't say I personally find such a prospect repugnant. I don't view embryos as having rights, although I respect the views of those who do, and I have no issue with socially-undesirable traits being weeded out of the gene pool. I'm not an opponent of eugenics; I think we would all be better off if everyone were intelligent, healthy, and so on, and no worse off if everyone were handsome, white, and heterosexual.

(I strongly disagree with the idea that diversity is inherently good. I don't believe in having pride in one's race or sexual orientation. Both race and sexual orientation are morally neutral; being white or gay is neither good nor bad, not individually and by extension not collectively. Society gains and loses nothing from the prevalence of such traits.)

More pertinent will become the issues of a social elite, the ones that can afford gene screening and the ones that can't. The discrimination could start very easily if those records were made easily accessible for example health insurers would want to know who has been screened to remove high probabilities of cancer or blood pressure etc.

An interesting point. Early on, certainly that would be the case, but once the rich have funded the market sufficiently to merit enough research, prices will end up dropping and the technology will be available to progressively more people. Locking it down for fear of an elite of the intelligent will only propagate such an elite, ultimately: it already exists to a large degree, ultimately only genetics research will eliminate it, and by restricting genetics technologies you're restricting the market for genetics technology and thus the money that will go into it.

[Denny Crane!]

As I created this topic scientists discovered a technique which enabled them to screen for thousands of more defects at a much much faster speed. Very interesting.

Societal gain aside. These treatments are available in a capatalistic society, not everyone will have access to them as they cost money. Just like cancer treatments and AID treatments it would be nice if everyone could have them but it is not going to happen. So is societal gain in this utiliterian aspect worth it, in that it is available for some and not for others. I think ultimatly it is as we do not discriminate against cancer treatments purely because they are not freely available worldwide. The issue of course as I mentioned before is the idea of genetic discrimination though like all forms of discrimination it can be legislated against.

Peter

[Simetrical]

Societal gain aside. These treatments are available in a capatalistic society, not everyone will have access to them as they cost money. Just like cancer treatments and AID treatments it would be nice if everyone could have them but it is not going to happen. So is societal gain in this utiliterian aspect worth it, in that it is available for some and not for others.

As I said above, that's a self-defeating attitude. Of course it will never be affordable for all if there's no investment in it. The rich have to pay for the first wave of genetic screening if the middle class will be able to afford the second wave, and they'll have to pay for that for the lower classes to afford later waves. More money going to companies that sell this stuff means more research as competitors struggle to get ahead. That's the whole point of capitalism, after all.

[The Fish]

As I said above, that's a self-defeating attitude. Of course it will never be affordable for all if there's no investment in it. The rich have to pay for the first wave of genetic screening if the middle class will be able to afford the second wave, and they'll have to pay for that for the lower classes to afford later waves. More money going to companies that sell this stuff means more research as competitors struggle to get ahead. That's the whole point of capitalism, after all.

As we wait for this economic adjustment, however, won't we create an entire underclass of genetically "inferior" people whose parent's couldn't afford genetic tailoring, but who came before the procedures became widely available? That's why I think tailor making babies will always be ethically dicey; screening out diseases is a different matter, though. I guess it will be very difficult to avoid a slippery slope, however.

[Simetrical]

As we wait for this economic adjustment, however, won't we create an entire underclass of genetically "inferior" people whose parent's couldn't afford genetic tailoring, but who came before the procedures became widely available?

But early treatments will not only be more expensive, but less effective. You might get slight boosts, but nothing major, since the appropriate genome sites would be unknown or not thoroughly tested for side effects. Yes, there will be some effect of making the rich richer and the poor poorer, but I think that's easily outweighed in the long term.

However there will always be an underclass who never reach the bracket where they can afford it, there is no getting away from that fact. Just like there is an underclass now comprising of the majority of the earths populace who can't get access to a wide range of medical technology or treatments.

But the majority of the Earth's populace still has access to much better technology than they did, say, 500 years ago. Typical central-African laborers don't have access to virtually anything we take for granted, sure, but they're the exception, not the rule. Almost anyone who lives in, say, South Africa, the Middle East, South America, or urban China has access to basic antibiotics, for instance, if necessary, despite living in third world or borderline-third world nations. Technology is steadily reaching them, just more slowly than it's reached us, its originators. The same will ultimately be true of genetic screening.

And keep in mind that even if extra intelligence is mainly given to the wealthy, it's still going to help society. These more intelligent people will go on to invent new technologies, cheaper and better technologies, that will help everyone.

[Denny Crane!]

But early treatments will not only be more expensive, but less effective. You might get slight boosts, but nothing major, since the appropriate genome sites would be unknown or not thoroughly tested for side effects. Yes, there will be some effect of making the rich richer and the poor poorer, but I think that's easily outweighed in the long term.

But the majority of the Earth's populace still has access to much better technology than they did, say, 500 years ago. Typical central-African laborers don't have access to virtually anything we take for granted, sure, but they're the exception, not the rule. Almost anyone who lives in, say, South Africa, the Middle East, South America, or urban China has access to basic antibiotics, for instance, if necessary, despite living in third world or borderline-third world nations. Technology is steadily reaching them, just more slowly than it's reached us, its originators. The same will ultimately be true of genetic screening.

And keep in mind that even if extra intelligence is mainly given to the wealthy, it's still going to help society. These more intelligent people will go on to invent new technologies, cheaper and better technologies, that will help everyone.

I can't argue with that.

BTW will come back to the other thread. Not up to large posts today.

Peter

[Denny Crane!]

As I said above, that's a self-defeating attitude. Of course it will never be affordable for all if there's no investment in it. The rich have to pay for the first wave of genetic screening if the middle class will be able to afford the second wave, and they'll have to pay for that for the lower classes to afford later waves. More money going to companies that sell this stuff means more research as competitors struggle to get ahead. That's the whole point of capitalism, after all.

Its not a self defeating attitude since I stated I was in favour of it.

However there will always be an underclass who never reach the bracket where they can afford it, there is no getting away from that fact. Just like there is an underclass now comprising of the majority of the earths populace who can't get access to a wide range of medical technology or treatments.