No doubt research plays a fundamental role in advancing our understanding of science and nature, and publicizing findings is an essential way to communicate broadly, and in lay terms, the value of the work. But what happens when researchers veer into the controversial world of analyzing the underpinnings of sexuality and are not careful about every word they use to describe their work?
Enter Dr. Charles Roselli of the Oregon Health and Science University, who had set out years ago to learn why roughly one in 10 rams prefer sex with other rams. As part of his research, the homosexual rams were killed so the doctor could study their brain structures. Roselli reportedly was interested in understanding the mechanisms behind homosexuality in sheep and thought his work could one day help breeders best choose which sheep to breed. But in a press release, the doctor was quoted talking about the broader implications of the research that could include humans.
Predictably, activists got wind of the research and things started to heat up. The press took interest. Openly-lesbian tennis star Martina Navratilova cried foul. Bloggers blogged. Then, to accompany a story published late last month, the New York Times ran a photo of three (presumably gay) sheep on its cover. The photo was the second largest one besides the above-the-fold shot of President Bush and Karl Rove. Talk about publicity.
The Times story’s focus, incidentally, was the storm of bad publicity that arose from what was characterized as the rather benign work of a legitimate researcher. “The story of the gay sheep became a textbook example,” the Times wrote, “of the distortion and vituperation that can result when science meets the global news cycle.” Holy sheep!
On the one hand, we have a story of a researcher who wants to understand sexuality in sheep. On the other, we have a community of activists who see no value in killing sheep for such research, and others who fear the work could lead us down a path to “curing” humans of same-sex orientation.
Who’s right? It’s hard to say. Perhaps the doctor has the best intentions and yet his work will end up being a catalyst for finding a “cure.” I can tell you that a Google search for “cure for homosexuality” identified 23,800 results, some of which were downright scary. It seems one too many people are happy to ruminate about the day when some simple medical application will guarantee the production of exclusively heterosexual children.
If the doctor could do it all over again, I bet he would have been clearer about the specific purpose of the research from the get-go and not so cavalier about the human implications of studying gay sheep. Unfortunately, science by its nature is sometimes hard to translate to the public. This means that science surrounding a controversial topic must be even more carefully communicated so it doesn’t give the wrong impressions.
SUBSCRIBE
Yes research is very important part of human life, and that is why we are different from the animals!