Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

NU Prof. Bailey researching possible ‘gay gene’

New research challenges conventional ideas of sexual orientation and homosexuality

Published: Friday, April 16, 2010

Updated: Friday, April 16, 2010 05:04

Recent research from Northwestern Prof. J. Michael Bailey raises new questions in the science behind sexual orientation, namely bisexuality and the prototypical "gay gene."

In his studies on bisexuality, Bailey, a psychology professor, and a team of researchers look at sexual arousal patterns to objectively determine sexual orientation in men and women. Bailey tracks the subject's brain activity while they are looking at erotic pictures to essentially determine "what turns them on," he said.

One new finding is in the sexual orientation of women. Bailey said he found most of his female subjects to be scientifically bisexual, even if they subjectively thought otherwise.

"Women don't work in the way we thought, based on a lot of research we did five to 10 years ago," he said. "Women, at least in the laboratory, get aroused to both stimuli."

This changes everything, Bailey said.

"Now I don't even know if women have something like a sexual orientation," he said.

About two-thirds of women are showing arousal patterns that differ from what they consider to be their orientation, said Adam Safron, a research consultant on the project.

"Women are not being driven in their arousal pattern in the same way as males," he said.

Male arousal patterns were less flexible than female patterns, Bailey said. Men who believed themselves to be bisexual were aroused by both female and male stimuli but exhibited a stronger arousal to males than females. Bailey published a paper in 2005 suggesting bisexual men do not have bisexual arousal patterns. If sexual arousal patterns are the key to sexual orientation and his research is accurate, male bisexuality may not actually exist, Bailey said.

"I never meant to suggest bisexual men were lying about their sexuality," he said. "But there has been some skepticism about if bisexual men are really bisexual in the same way gay men are gay or straight men straight."

Safron said the science behind sexual orientation can get complicated.

"In terms of what people tell you they like, you can't always trust what they tell you, especially with something as emotionally involved as sexuality," he said.

Bailey is also researching the molecular genetic study of sexual orientation. In other words, he is looking for a "gay gene," or a genetic marker that corresponds with homosexuality. To do this, Bailey is comparing the DNA of two brothers who are both gay.

"If there is a gene, they're both likely to share it," he said. "We're looking for pieces of chromosomes that these gay brothers share far more than would be expected by chance."

Bailey said if a "gay gene" is discovered, public reaction will be interesting.

"People are going to make a big deal out of this because people are obsessed with this topic," he said. "We obviously find this topic very interesting, but people often make more than they should of these kinds of results. "

However, the term "gay gene" is somewhat misleading, because there are likely multiple genes involved, Safron said.

Weinberg freshman Tim Hughes said he is skeptical of research that aims to find a genetic link to homosexuality.

"As a gay man, I feel the research opens up doors to discrimination," he said. "Especially in countries where homosexuality is illegal, if a test exists to prove homosexuality, it gives people more power to persecute gay people."

Another issue raised by the potential discovery of a genetic marker for homosexuality is the eventual ability to abort fetuses based on their sexual orientation.

Bailey said he wants to emphasize this potential to abort fetuses based on sexual orientation is not eugenics, and researchers are "far away" from such a discovery.

"I have no interest in practicing eugenics in terms of changing society to make it more uniform," he said. "It's not about society mandating what everybody must do, it's about parents being allowed to try to affect their child. We already let parents do that. We expect parents to do that."

Many people in support of abortion rights strongly oppose this idea, Safron said. He said he himself is unsure of the right answer, and it is a complicated issue to figure out.

"It seems to me that if you support a woman's right a choose, this is not a case where you can step aside from that belief," he said. "You are going to have to take the good with the bad in terms of reasons for abortion."

Both Safron and Bailey said the argument could be made for any aborted fetus, not just fetuses aborted because of sexual orientation.

"We have the option now of aborting fetuses because we woke up on the wrong side of the bed on Tuesday," Bailey said. "We think parents who don't value gay people are bad. But that doesn't mean we don't let those people abort that gay fetus. Making them have a gay child is a perverse limitation of freedom."

Safron said the abortion issue should be put aside as research on sexual orientation continues.

"It's the other assumptions people have that are the problem," he said. "The idea that some people are more or less worthy of respect, freedom, kindness, based on personal lifestyle choices that don't hurt anyone is the real issue here."

arudansky@u.northwestern.edu

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

16 comments

Anonymous
Tue May 4 2010 09:29
I'm not sure but we don't realize the amount of problems homosexual children go through adjusting in society and growing up. Educating people and enacting laws about the natural trait of homosexuality does not solve the problem of social-acceptance. The movement for woman's rights, racial-minority rights and rights of LGBTQ and many others are in the end futile in promoting "true" acceptace. If they trigger acceptance it is only superficial. As a straight-man who is an ally of gay men, I have seen my straight friends be all accepting and regular with my gay friends on a daily basis but still they talk and poke fun of their absurdity behind their back. As a white male, I have seen the same thing with some of my white and other race friends who appear to be all "anti-racism" but when it comes to their personal life they discriminate and don't prefer to date black , Asian or colored women and they say that we are not being "racist" but it is our preference not to date them. But when you get to the bottom of the story, they would pass racist and call them dirty and unattractive. It is saddening to see such hypocrisy operating.

As a sociology student, I have been following this trend in research. If you go to forums where people look for sex or relationship dates, they openly and explicitly in some cases list the race, height , age and other factors that they discriminate their interactions with. Now, where does the racial equality go in this case?

Recent research has shown that the human brain reacts differently to race and our attitudes are wierdly wired in some cases when ti comes to race and perception about people.

Even though we educate people, but still you have silent-discrimination occurring in the media and stereotypes being generated about Gays and other minorities. Even if discrimination ends in America, you cannot change the world-view. Fact of the matter is that majority of world' population still views homosexuality as wrong and an aberration unfortunately. What is even more saddening is that American government in recent cases supports regimes that are racist and discriminate against minorities.

Unfortunately, what we are noticing in gay-communities is that people silence even their own communities voices and take their right to self-express. There is a significant minority of men who don't want same-sex attractions and they want to follow the heterosexual model and they are gay. The gay community ostracizes them too and the straight community also judges them and passes comments on them or shuns them.

I think that we should not impose our world-view and perception on other people. The right to choose is what makes us human-beings. IT is what makes us Americans. While social-education and legislation on acceptance of minorities is paramount, we also need to be open in terms of research efforts and also realize the complexity of issues.

We need to acknowledge the right of people to do what they want with their body. I have seen in the gay community that they sometimes certain elements fiercely react to this research at Northwestern fearing that it will be used for eugenics. Even the straight people sometimes who are allies think like this.

But I think that as long as we Americans realize and uphold our support for INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS this scenario is not a problem. In the near future, the State needs to back off and give the individual the right to choose what they want to do with their own bodies. If a parent wants to abort their fetus or engineer it maybe then they should have that right. Whereas, if they want to refuse to have that, that choice should also be respected.

People are jumping quickly to conclusions to a complex future problem in this forum. In the debate over future laws, we need active involvement of all interest groups and we need to ensure that our American quest for strong support of individual right to choose dictates our choice whether to abort the baby rather than Social, Religious , Cultural or Scientific dogma. No parent wishes what is bad for their children. Let the parent decide and in particular the mother be the key decision maker over her body and her future.

All the gay-rights activists, the libertarians, the conservatives, the Bible thumpers, Pro and Con Abortion groups and various groups need to back off and think this cooly. Dr. Bailey has made an important point. But the future ethical dilemmas if we face any are to be solved in respecting rights of individuals and their choices even if we don't disagree with it.

Abortion and Orientation
Sun May 2 2010 14:59
If women can abort autistic children, deaf and blind children or those that have genetic mutations that are diagnosed with pre-implantation diagnosis then why can they not abort their kids based on their sexual orientation? It makes complete sense. Any future legislation needs to forbid the abortion of children with diseases because they have a right to live. Autists are often shouting that they don't need a cure and it's a natural variation.

Similarly, the deaf and blind communities often rear children with their traits and call it normal and natural expression. So forbidding fetal abortion based on sexual orientation in the future needs to be aligned with the debate for the rights of autistics, aspergers, and people with many other disabilities that sometimes argue they don't want to be cured and their behavior and personality is a part of nature.--- I am an Aspie

Anonymous
Sun May 2 2010 11:44
This is the hypocritical nature of our American society. First of all abortion is legalized under the "individual" human rights theory. A woman can abort her child using whatever excuse she wants to do so. My cousin aborted her baby because she had a fight with her husband and wanted to punish him psychologically and then take divorce. She went to the clinic and got it ...No big deal. She was practicing her RIGHT to individual freedom.

I'm a supporter of abortion and the right of choice furthermore, I also have homosexual tendencies. But it is hypocritical how freedom to choose is being imposed MILITANT LIMITS!

The human rights of homosexuals are to be respected. They have to be given all the rights. However, the decision to abort a child whether it be due to homosexuality or one's disturbed relationship with someone else or various reasons is an integral part of SELF DETERMINATION.

A woman goes through labor and pain to bear the baby in her womb for 9-months. Pregnancy is not a pleasant experience. A mother has the right to do whatever she wants with her kid and on whatever grounds she wants to abort it. It HER choice. Its funny how the hypocrisy comes out when homosexuals or people with other RELIGIOUS, CULTURAL or MORAL beliefs IMPOSE their version or understanding on others.

Let the individual make his/her own decisions. Or scrap all this hypocritical dual-sided human-rights argument that exists out there.

cst
Sun Apr 18 2010 16:33
Then I guess it seems to me that Bailey doesn't have a problem with parents aborting their fetus based on its sexual orientation (if science is actually ever able to show what a fetus's sexual orientation is). Just listen to the outcry!: "We think parents who don’t value gay people are bad." No, really.

And Safron says the problem is that: "The idea that some people are more or less worthy of respect, freedom, kindness, based on personal lifestyle choices that don’t hurt anyone is the real issue here.”

Yet it is this idea that will be put to use if parents (potentially) decide to abort their fetus on the basis of sexual orientation.

Main point to take away from these two: not valuing homosexuals who are alive right now (which is bad) is worse than ending the potential life of a fetus based on the fact that it might be homosexual. Nevermind that we're not letting the fetus live solely based on the fact that it is (potentially) homosexual.

Sam
Sun Apr 18 2010 12:53
We understand the "quacks like a duck" idiom, thanks. Someone else cleverly drew from that to call Bailey a "quack", a sentiment widely shared by a vocal minority of people who only have an interest in science when it aligns with their own views.
Does anyone really think it would be OK to abort a "straight" fetus, but not a "gay" one? Do we need to start requiring women to outline their reasons for having an abortion, and only allow those who aren't discriminating based on sexual orientation (if we are one day able to determine a fetus's eventual orientation)? Of course not; that would be absurd, and that is Bailey's point.
Anonymous
Sat Apr 17 2010 15:33
fyi the duck metaphor wasn't calling him a quack you idiots. it's an idiom for saying that this potential is in fact eugenics - even though he's claiming its not eugenics it exhibits all the characteristics of eugenics.
Sam
Sat Apr 17 2010 14:46
Jen: that line of reasoning only works if you are pro-life.
It seems Bailey aligns himself more with the pro-choice side, and so of course, to him, making someone have a child, gay or otherwise, is a "perverse limitation of freedom". If that's what qualifies someone as a "quack", then you're indicting the vast majority of professors and students on this campus.
Jen
Sat Apr 17 2010 06:19
Sam: it's not eugenics if it's individuals making choices over their own bodies. But that's not what he's talking about, he's talking about people making choices over a body that, for now, happens to be in their own.
Sam
Fri Apr 16 2010 17:16
Also: it's not eugenics if it's simply individuals making decisions about their own bodies.
Could the discovery of a "gay gene" create the potential for some neo-Nazi government to advocate the termination of fetuses known to carry it? Sure. But the potential is not the problem--the problem would be if someone actually tried to implement it, which I can't see happening.

As far as I know, abortions can't be considered hate crimes--they're not even crimes at all.

Bailey's just asking for consistency in the pro-choice argument.

Sam
Fri Apr 16 2010 17:04
I think Bailey's point is that forcing a woman to NOT have an abortion (i.e. keeping her from having an abortion) is a "perverse limitation of freedom" ... no matter the reasons. He's pro-choice, clearly.
Women can currently abort a fetus for any reason at all. Can someone who is pro-choice really say that a woman cannot abort a baby because it will be gay? That's Bailey's point, and it's a good one.

You get into some difficult ethical territory with this, but at this point it's only speculation anyway because this "gay gene" has yet to be confirmed.

Bailey's one of Northwestern's great, courageous professors. It takes guts to publish research that will cause a backlash from people who want to deny facts and only pay attention to what "feels right".

Anonymous
Fri Apr 16 2010 15:48
Researchers are working to discover a genetic link to homosexuality. I think it is interesting to read about the potential consequences of such research. To write a story about this topic without discussing all aspects of it would be irresponsible.
Anonymous
Fri Apr 16 2010 15:31
"Making them have a gay child is a perverse limitation of freedom.”
WHAT.
THE.
EFF.

Seriously?! How about DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION IS A PERVERSE LIMITATION OF FREEDOM?! Jesus. Jen is right about the duck metaphor- Northwestern needs to dump this QUACK pronto.

Anyone want to start a petition?

Anonymous
Fri Apr 16 2010 14:01
Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. It is irresponsible to discuss all of these complex social issues with regards to sexual orientation, when the researchers have NO DATA on whether there is a gay gene or even a biological basis for homosexuality. Did the author of this article miss this fact?
Anonymous
Fri Apr 16 2010 12:45
Who the f u c k cares
Annoyed
Fri Apr 16 2010 11:42
How is this guy still here? After allegations of misconduct, problems with research/publications, and the fact that his research is not supported by the psychology community at large...
Jen
Fri Apr 16 2010 10:51
"this potential to abort fetuses based on sexual orientation is not eugenics"

Really? Cos if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck...







log out