Are we an endangered species?

Scientists are almost certain genetics plays a n,4 or role in homosexuality. One day soon it may be possible to determine or even alter sexual orientation in the womb

In Simon LeVay's new novel, Albrick's Gold, Dr. Guy Albrick performs cruel genetic experiments on gay students at a right-wing religious college. Dr. Roger Cavendish, a gay scientist, tries to stop him. In this biotech thriller, LeVay, best known for his controversial research regarding the differences in brain structure between homosexuals and heterosexuals, examines what could happen if such science is used for evil. Thrillers play off the fears of the reader, and LeVay's book, being marketed to gays and lesbians, is no exception.

The fear is not unfounded. Just look at some recent events: In February a mini-uproar in Britain resulted when The Sunday Telegraph quoted scientist James Watson as saying, "If you could find the gene which determines sexuality and a woman decides she doesn't want a homosexual child, well, let her." Watson, who shares a Nobel prize for helping to discover the structure of DNA, has claimed he was misquoted. Journalist Chandler Burr wrought a bit of controversy himself by writing in the December 16 issue of the conservative Weekly Standard that in the not-so-distant future, gene therapy might "cure" people of their homosexuality. And in the Broadway play and Showtime cable network film The Twilight of the Golds, a woman discovers through genetic testing that the baby she is carrying will most likely be gay. In the play she aborts the baby and ends up barren. In the movie she keeps the baby but loses her husband.

Of course, nothing has really happened yet. The ramifications of such a scientific breakthrough are all conjectural because there hasn't been any major scientific breakthrough. So is all this fuss justified? It depends on whom you ask.

According to Dean Hamer of the National Cancer Institute, a genetic test for homosexuality is not only unlikely to be developed anytime soon but also unlikely to even work. "I don't think there's ever going to be an accurate test for homosexuality," he says. And he should know. In his groundbreaking 1993 study of 40 pairs of gay brothers, Hamer located the area on the X chromosome where a gene linked to homosexuality most likely resides--an area where 33 of the pairs shared genetic material. While most scientists agree that there's a genetic component to the causation of homosexuality, it's unlikely that genetics alone are entirely responsible. In an earlier study of identical twin brothers of gay men, researchers Richard Pillard of Boston University and Michael Bailey of Northwestern University discovered that only 52% of the twins were gay as well. The so-called gay gene would hint of a propensity for homosexuality, but it wouldn't definitively signal it. In fact, researchers don't really know what causes a child with such a gene to become homosexual. "An honest doctor could never say that he knew for sure" a child would be gay, Hamer says. "If he did, it would be malpractice."

But that doesn't mean a test won't--or can't--be developed. LeVay believes that "a test is very possible, perhaps in the category of `likely,' especially for men." (In women, researchers have not yet been able to see a genetic link to homosexuality.) Burr, author of A Separate Creation: The Search for the Biological Origins of Sexual Orientation, is adamant that once the gene for homosexuality is documented, "there will undoubtedly be almost immediately a fetal test for determining whether a child is going to be gay."

What would be the response to such a test? If someone does manage to develop at least a partially accurate analysis, the medical establishment would I be presented with an ethical quandary. Is homosexuality a medically neutral trait and therefore to be left alone? Or is it a genetic disease that should be cured, as antigay crusader the Rev. Lou Sheldon has remarked during discourses on the prospect of homosexuality's being biologically determined?

Some medical ethicists aren't terribly optimistic. "People would see it as a genetic defect and treat it as such," says Boston University professor George Annas. "They would treat it as all other genetic abnormalities. Nothing good would come of it." As it stands now, Annas adds, there aren't enough ethical guidelines.

Doctors generally accept that it is unethical to abort a fetus because of its sex. It would be foolish to think, however, that fetuses aren't aborted for that reason every day. But theoretically, at least, if a doctor knows that a couple wants to be told the sex of their child for reasons of sex selection, the doctor shouldn't tell them. Homosexuality should be treated the same way, says bioethicist Arthur Caplan of the University of Pennsylvania. "Medicine and science should stay out of areas that are clearly not dysfunctional," he says. "I don't see medicine and science just being there as waiters and waitresses" from whom you can order your baby's genetic traits. "But in the market-driven world of reproductive technology," he adds, "it will take five minutes, maybe not even that much time, and we will certainly have [the technology] in the marketplace."

Regulating that market would be difficult. There is little a medical ethics board can do if there is demand for an ethically suspect product. And the government generally doesn't enter debates about the ethics of medical procedures (though some exceptions exist, such as federally mandated time limits on the performance of abortions). Whether it's parents choosing not to have a gay child or a 35-year-old gay man deciding to become straight through genetic surgery, Burr says there will be a market and there's little that can be done about it. "There will be billions of dollars driving this," he says. "This is all part and parcel of the medical and cosmetic surgery of the future--from curing cancer to finding out your child's IQ to designing hair and eye color."

Just because someone wants it and is willing to fork over the cash, however, doesn't make it right. Still, criticizing genetic testing is one thing, but banning it is quite different, says Ruth Macklin of the Albert Einstein School of Medicine at New York City's Yeshiva University. "For anyone who is pro-choice, one wouldn't want to see any restrictions for women or couples who want to abort a fetus," she says. "It's a question of pushing against people with differing values." One can be a very strong supporter of gay rights, she adds, and still support the right of a woman or a couple to abort a fetus that might become gay.

The dilemma posed by these conflicting value systems is exactly the issue that needs to be addressed, according to the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians. The group contends that if those who share Macklin's viewpoint have their way, gay men and lesbians could be engineered and aborted out of existence. In a plea to other gays to support the group's pro-life stance, its founder, Tom Sena, asked in a syndicated op-ed piece that ran in several publications in March, "What are gays and lesbians going to do now to prepare for a time when a woman's `right to choose' becomes a hunting license to exterminate our kind?"

While Sena invokes images of eugenics, few actually think that Nazi-like state-sponsored eradication of the gay gene will take place. "This is a country that can't get a government plan on pothole repair together," Caplan jokes. "So I wouldn't worry about them getting a eugenics plan together." Western societies, Burr says, are advanced enough in their understanding and acceptance of homosexuality that he doubts there will be a political force that will rise and try to eliminate it from the gene pool.

But while big-time eugenics seems far-fetched, small-time eugenics isn't. Parents genetically engineering their own children--"do-it-yourself eugenics," LeVay calls it--is likely to become common. This is both good and bad. The goal of most parents is simply to have healthy children. It's less probable that a couple would try to create a family that resembles a Von Trapp-like master race than one free of terrible medical conditions such as Tay-Sachs disease or cystic fibrosis.

Some, though, may be susceptible to religious or political pronouncements against homosexuality and use the power of genetic engineering to fine-tune their sexuality or the sexuality of their offspring. "There will be homosexual fetuses that will be aborted," says Burr. "There will be people who involuntarily and voluntarily have their sexual orientations genetically altered. However, I think these cases will be relatively few in number and will decrease the more people know and understand gay people."

Such applications, according to some, do not diminish the possible benefits of the science. "I'm an avid eugenicist," Burr says earnestly. "The ability to alter the genes within that cause disease, mental retardation, psychosis, emotional instability, and other debilitating conditions is absolutely what we should be doing. If you're talking about forcing it on other people, that's another matter. But nobody's talking about that--at least, nobody responsible."

"While a scientist like LeVay's Albrick may become that someone irresponsible enough to force his views on susceptible parents-to-be, no one knows whether the population as a whole (or even a fraction thereof) would ever follow suit. Throughout this whole debate ethicists and scientists have made a number of assumptions about what prospective parents will and will not do. Many seem to fear the worst. However, the cystic fibrosis example may be educational. When researchers found the gene that causes cystic fibrosis, a disease that often suffocates children before the age of 20, many thought there would be a rash of genetic testing and abortions. Even though the test is mostly accurate, very few parents so far have chosen to take it. A test for a gay gene would probably be only 50% accurate. The question, then, is, If parents won't give a fetus what is a fairly reliable test for a gene that could cause its lungs to fill with thick, strangling mucus, are they likely to test for a gene that has a coin flip of a chance of making their child gay?

Whether or not straight parents line up for genetic testing, though, gay parents-to-be may have a vested interest. Says Caplan: "There will be people actively trying to create somebody gay." In the meantime, though, as gay acceptance and gay parents become more common, it seems less likely that the gay gene will disappear from the human genome entirely. If that does start to happen, however ... well, there's always cloning.

RELATED ARTICLE: Genetic division

A poll conducted in February by U.S. News & World Report and Bozell Worldwide asked Americans how large a part they thought heredity and genes played in determining whether a person is gay

Genetics has no role             40%
Genetics somewhat determines     29%
Genetics mostly determines       13%
Genetics completely determines    7%
Don't know                       11%