Blinded by science.

Multitalented academic Ed Stein takes on the nature-versus-nurture argument with The Mismeasure of Desire, a smart book that raises skepticism to a fine art

Ed Stein is not afraid of controversy. In lectures and debates and on dozens of radio and television talk shows, the witty 34-year-old academic has been defending his ideas ever since the October publication of his groundbreaking book, The Mismeasure of Desire: The Science, Theory, and Ethics of Sexual Orientation.

Despite its well-mannered rifle, the book is hot stuff. In its pages Stein calls on his unusual intellectual arsenal--including a Ph.D. in philosophy, a soon-to-be-awarded law degree from Yale, a sly sense of humor--to poke holes in the "gay gene" research of Simon LeVay, Dean Hamer, and other scientists whose work suggests that sexual orientation is genetic. Then, for good measure, Stein, who is gay, goes on to debunk gay politics based on those scientific theories.

Why's he making so much noise? "There are serious problems with the science itself as well as using arguments based on science to push for lesbian and gay rights," Stein says. From his perspective at the nexus of philosophy, law, science, and gay activism, Stein sees the red flags especially clearly.

His concerns start with the "I was born that way" argument. Yes, it comforts and reassures many gays and lesbians, but Stein points out that in embracing it too easily we're heading down a dangerous road. "Even if the scientific research proves correct--and it is far too early to tell--it could lead to medical techniques to change a person's sexual orientation or screening techniques to prevent the birth of gay people," Stein warns. "Not that long ago gay men and lesbians faced a wide array of medical procedures--from genital surgery to hormone injections--to `fix' them. As late as 1970 brain surgery was an acceptable option in medical literature to deal with `the problem of homosexuality.'"

By arming ordinary gays and lesbians with the facts, Stein hopes to prevent a repeat of the horrors of the past. "My goal," Stein says, "is to reframe the entire public discussion around the development of sexual orientations and to provide gay people with the tools to question the scientific research and its value."

Stein's quest dates back to 1991, when the journal Science published LeVay's study claiming to find substantive differences in hypothalamus size between gay and straight men. In 1993 the same journal published a study by Hamer and others that claimed to find genetic differences between gay and straight men. Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard also published research on gay men and lesbians and their twin siblings that suggested a genetic connection.

"I had come out a few years before these studies were published," Stein notes, "and I was very excited about gay politics." At the time a committed activist and academic with two books to his credit--including "a critique of theories of sexual orientation"--Stein says the national media attention given to LeVay's and Hamer's research grabbed his attention. "My training had taught me that a lot of what was being said was, well, highly unscientific. I felt an increasing sense of urgency to do things to make people think deeply and critically about sexual orientation." The result is The Mismeasure of Desire.

Meticulously researched and argued, Stein's book challenges the precepts of ten years of increasingly accepted scientific "fact." It begins with a sympathetic look at current scientific theories of sexual orientation but quickly pinpoints where they go off-kilter. "Many studies assume that only homosexuality is in need of an explanation; in fact, how people develop heterosexual desires is just as much of a mystery," Stein says.

Besides, he argues, "most researchers begin with extraordinarily simplistic concepts of what sexual orientations are. We assume that a person's sexual orientation is a window into her soul; if you know her sexual orientation, you know a crucial feature of her character. This assumption is culturally salient, but there is no scientific evidence to support it. And any scientific experiments that begin with such assumptions are going to be wrongheaded."

LeVay, speaking to The Advocate about Stein's work, politely disagrees. "Stein is right in saying that such a belief [about the biological importance of sexual orientation] influences someone's approach to doing this science," LeVay says. "I wouldn't waste my time if I didn't think that sexual orientation was a salient feature of someone's identity." For LeVay, the assumptions make sense. "Each individual contains many different variables, and we cannot fully understand someone without understanding all of these parts--but some parts are more salient," he contends. "Whether someone is a man or a woman enables you to know a lot about them. The same is true, I think, of sexual orientation."

LeVay and Stein do agree, however, that "gay science" doesn't happen in a vacuum: Where science goes, politics follows. "Many gay people want to use this research to promote gay rights," Stein explains. "If gay people are `born that way,' then discrimination against them must be wrong." But in Stein's view, mixing politics with science is a recipe for disaster.

"Biological arguments for lesbian and gay rights fail across the board--theoretically, practically, and legally," he insists. "Even if sexual orientation is innate, a gay or lesbian person's public identity, sexual behaviors, romantic relationships, or decisions to raise children are all choices. No theory suggests that these choices are genetic. A homophobic person might easily accept that gay people do not choose their sexual orientation-while still hating gay people and wanting to prevent us from having sex or building queer families."

Besides, Stein argues, since the scientific research is in its early stages, later research could reach different conclusions-and open the door to a fresh wave of discrimination. "It is not worth risking our basic human rights on a theory of how sexual orientations develop," Stein says. (Indeed, a recent study in the journal Science failed to replicate Hamer's gay gene study, and LeVay's results have yet to be replicated.)

Stein, who lives in New York City with his partner of seven years, knows his ideas are controversial, and he welcomes criticism and debate. But he insists that science, particularly what he considers bad science, cannot answer the ethical, legal, and political questions. "Many arguments for gay rights--like the argument that `we are born that way, so don't discriminate against us'--fail to take a strong ethical stand," he says. "These arguments ask for pity, sympathy, or mere tolerance. Instead, we have to be willing to say that being gay is a good thing and that there is no moral difference between being queer and being straight. Rather than look to science for liberation, we need to confront homophobia and argue for gay rights base, on liberty, equality, and justice."

Bronski won a 1999 Stonewall Award for his contributions to the quality of gay and lesbian life in America.