___

I stumbled across this article in my daily perusal of the webs myriad offerings of "news." It's about the backlash against Oregon University researcher, Charles Roselli, who is searching for physiological determinants of homosexuality in male sheep (Rams). Apparently plenty of people have lashed out, with varying degrees of accuracy in their target, against this research. The threat, as opponents see it, is in the implications for human application, particularly genetic selection and the potential for parents to choose whether or not their children are gay.

I found it absolutely fascinating that the arguments against this research rely so heavily on a naturalistic "let nature be" argument, with such a strong defensive stance. Granted, we should be aware of how any research can be manipulated, especially when it threatens the identity of an entire group; but I couldn't get past the determinist manner in which opponents assumed this research would result in a means of "controlling" homosexuality in humans. I was really surprised that no one stood up and said "great! hopefully now we can explain that homosexuality is natural, and exists beyond the human realm."

It seems that, once again, people have failed to make the distinction between nefarious acts like eugenics, and the tools that make them, and various other benign aspects of science, possible. Or maybe I'm reading it wrong, and this is just the door to genetic selection - regardless of "benign" scientific exploration. I tend to prefer a society in which knowledge is open and its application is a matter of political decision-making; though I can't say I'm not guilty of the occasional idealism despite reality.