Of Gay Sheep, Modern Science and Bad Publicity

gay sheep Die Geschichte des Wissenschaftlers, dem es gelungen war „schwule“ Schafe mittels Hormontherapie dazu zu bringen wieder ausschliesslich die Weibchen der Gattung zu besteigen, hat in der angloamerikanischen Presse-, und Bloglandschaft einen ziemlichen Wirbel verursacht. Besorgte Liberale sahen die Homosexualität in den reichen, westlichen Ländern bereits so gut wie ausgemerzt, sollten die Studien an den tragisch veranlagten Schafen fortgesetzt werden. Die New York Times über den Skandal:

The story of the gay sheep became a textbook example of the distortion and vituperation that can result when science meets the global news cycle.
The news media storm reached its zenith last month, when The Sunday Times in London published an article under the headline “Science Told: Hands Off Gay Sheep.” It asserted, incorrectly, that Dr. Roselli had worked successfully to “cure” homosexual rams with hormone treatments, and added that “critics fear” that the research “could pave the way for breeding out homosexuality in humans.”
Martina Navratilova, the tennis star who is both openly gay and a PETA ally, wrote in an open letter that the research “can only be surmised as an attempt to develop a prenatal treatment” for sexual conditions.
The controversy spilled into the blog world, with attacks on Dr. Roselli, his university and Oregon State University, which is also involved in the research. PETA began an e-mail campaign that the universities say resulted in 20,000 protests, some with language like “you are a worthless animal killer and you should be shot,” “I hope you burn in hell” and “please, die.”

Dr. Roselli, whose research is supported by the National Institutes of Health and is published in leading scientific journals, insists that he is as repulsed as his critics by the thought of sexual eugenics in humans. He said human sexuality was a complex phenomenon that could not be reduced to interactions of brain structure and hormones. […]
Dr. Roselli said that merely mentioning possible human implications of basic research was wildly different from intending to carry the work over to humans.
Mentioning human implications, he said, is “in the nature of the way we write our grants” and talk to reporters. Scientists who do basic research find themselves in a bind, he said, adding, “We have been forced to draw connections in a way that we can justify our research.”

Link