PETA crosses the line

by emptypockets

Jan. 4 2007: For those just learning of this story, please also see today's update on it, detailing how PETA's lies just now crossed over to the mainstream media via the Sunday Times.

Charles Roselli, a biologist at Oregon Health & Science University, turned on his computer the other day to find that he had been targeted. His research had been lied about, and his reputation insulted. Perhaps it should not come as a surprise for a right-wing group to oppose his science, since his research implies that homosexuality is biologically programmed and part of the natural world, not a "lifestyle choice" or an "abomination." But it wasn't a right-wing group that had targeted him. It was PETA.

Dr. Roselli is part of a vanguard of researchers trying to understand the biological basis of complex behavior. Animal behavior is so complicated that it seems almost impossible that we could ever understand it at the molecular level -- but then again, that's what we thought about embryonic development a few decades ago, and that has turned out to be a beautiful and understandable molecular story. Likewise, complex behaviors are rapidly coming into range as something we can understand in our lifetime. For example, researchers have now assembled a fairly detailed picture of how circadian clocks keep time, synchronizing your body's internal rhythms to the pattern of day and night.

Understanding sexual behavior is one of the most exciting areas right now -- after all, the preference to mate with one individual over another is a major part of generating new species and therefore a driving force in evolution. Already some major advances have taken place. Catherine Dulac at Harvard University has found that mutating a single pheromone receptor in male mice makes them attempt to have sex with males that intrude on their territory, instead of trying to fight with them. It is absolutely stunning that changing a single gene -- even changing a single letter of the DNA code -- could have such tremendous and specific consequences on behavior.

Even more amazing, it turns out that in the fruit fly Drosophila there is a single gene that can confer both male and female sexual behavior. This gene can be read in either of two forms, much like if you and I were each quoting an article you might elide ("...") one paragraph while I might elide another, keeping the same key information but changing certain details. Similarly, this gene is read slightly differently in males than in females. Forcing males to express the female form of the gene makes them stop mating with females and instead become interested in other males; likewise, females expressing the male form of the gene begin performing the male part of the courtship ritual. If you had said fifteen years ago that sexual preference could be controlled by a single gene, I would have called you a nut.

But no one has been attacking the work of the fruit fly researchers. Catherine Dulac has not been called "anti-gay" by PETA. Instead, they picked on Dr. Roselli.

Dr. Roselli's group studies male-oriented sexual preference in rams, what some pop writers have nicknamed "gay sheep." You may have read something about it in the news, how he and co-workers found evidence that homosexuality is biological, or at least that there is a biological correlate to same-sex preference, a part of the brain that is of different size in gay males than in straight males, though cause and effect was still undetermined. It could be that sexual orientation determines the size of the hypothalamus, or it could be that the hypothalamus directly regulates sexual orientation. In order to test these possibilities, as the Seattle Times wrote, Dr. Roselli wanted to change conditions in the womb and ask if he could produce higher numbers of gay sheep. This experiment is identical in logic to the mouse and fly experiments described above -- you suspect A causes B, so alter A and see if there is an effect on B.

At this point it's worth noting that right-wing groups like Focus on the Family are also upset by the consequences of Dr. Roselli's research. They say homosexuality is a choice, not something you're born with, and I'm sure they would not like the idea of anyone learning how to make higher numbers of gays. At the same time PETA is lying about his work and his intent, claiming that if he proves homosexuality has a biological origin, it will open the doors to pharmaceutical drugs for "curing" homosexuality, and that that is his real goal. Both groups are off their rockers. They are wrong on several levels, but the most important one is denying the deep cultural component to human sexual behavior. Most animals have sex just to procreate; when's the last time you did? There is a lot more going on in the mind of a sexually aroused human than pheromones alone, and Dr. Roselli's group calls the rams "male-oriented" rather than "homosexual" for a reason: they are studying the biological basis of sexual behavior, and "homosexual" is a word laden with culture. At the same time, we would be foolish to think humans have transcended biology completely, and you would have to be appallingly incurious about the world around you not to think it is fascinating to understand how biology drives sexual behavior in other animals, and perhaps influences it in humans.

So, why did PETA target Dr. Roselli? My first guess, judging by the adorably fuzzy lamb at the top of their campaign page, was the sheep. I emailed Dr. Roselli to ask about it, and to my surprise he was gracious enough to consent to an email "interview" with an anonymous blogger, for which I'm grateful. (I should put in my disclosure here: I myself am a biologist, but I don't work with vertebrates -- other than the ones I eat lunch with every day -- and I am not in Dr. Roselli's field, don't know him, and have never met him.) I asked Dr. Roselli just how many sheep they use in their experiments, and he told me it averages about 18 sheep per year -- 6 male-oriented rams, 6 female-oriented rams, and 6 females. By comparison, I looked up how many sheep Americans eat each year, or at least how many are killed by American meat-packing companies: the answer is almost 4,000,000 per year. It doesn't seem like Dr. Roselli is Sheep Enemy #1.

I also asked Dr. Roselli why he felt it necessary to work on sheep, when such terrific progress was being made in mice and flies. He gave an excellent answer, something I hadn't thought about much before. In the mouse and fly experiments, researchers are manipulating the system to see what kinds of behaviors they can produce -- behaviors that tell us something about the underlying biology, but are themselves artificial. Dr. Roselli's sheep, though, are the way God made them (pardon the expression) -- the way evolution has selected for. It is one thing to see what behaviors you can create in a lab, it is something special to study behaviors as they exist naturally in the wild.

"Sheep are the only species in which a small percentage of males have been shown to exhibit an exclusive same sex attraction," Dr. Roselli wrote to me. "The behavior was first reported in mountain sheep, but has been more rigorously characterized and studied in domesticated sheep. Using the ram model allows us to do controlled studies to determine the biological factors that may contribute to sexual partner preference."

Their hypothesis, he said, is that the same factors that have evolved to control sexual determination and differentiation during development also underlie sexual partner preference.

So, if PETA isn't just trying to save as many sheep as it can, perhaps they were alarmed by the "gay" part of "gay sheep." Why they wouldn't attack one of the other labs, the ones working in mice or flies, is beyond me, but perhaps there was something about Dr. Roselli I didn't know. Perhaps he really is a homophobe or a bigot, and PETA has found him out. It seemed strange to me that the only evidence PETA gave for their claim that "Roselli has made it very clear that he intends to use the findings of his experiments to 'cure' humans next" was a completely innocuous statement from a grant application: "This research also has broader implications for understanding the development and control of sexual motivation and mate selection across mammalian species, including humans." I don't see anything about curing there -- I see "understanding" but I don't see curing. It sounds like normal grant boilerplate to me (good luck getting money from NIH without saying your work is relevant to humans).

But, like I said, I didn't know Dr. Roselli -- so I asked him. I wrote, "Do you think homosexuality is something that can or should be 'cured'?" His reply: "No," he said. "And I find it appalling and offensive that PETA has suggested that I and my collaborators do."

If PETA can defend their claim that his intention is to cure homosexuality, I would like to see that. Because it is a damn nasty thing to say. And as far as I can tell, it is a bald-faced lie.

So what is Dr. Roselli's intention? Is this research meant to help humans? Here is his reply:

Like all basic research there are potential benefits from this research at several levels. Sexual behavior is in many ways a hard-wired behavior, especially in animals like sheep. Understanding the developmental control of sexual partner preference as well as the neuroanatomical and neurochemical substrates of this behavior give us a better idea of how the brain works and may give us insights into other sexually differentiated behaviors and neuroendocrine functions.

Moreover, sexual behavior and sexual partner preference play a fundamental role in reproduction and psychosexual development. There are serious medical conditions that are the result of variations in sexual development, such as congenital adrenal hyperplasia and androgen insensitivity syndrome. These conditions may lead to problems of sexual function, social and psychosexual adjustment, mental health, quality of life and social participation. Understanding variations in psychosexual development that may affect these individuals requires reference to studies in non-human species that show marked but complex effects of androgens on sex differentiation of the brain and on behavior. A greater understanding of the biological underpinnings of partner preference may greatly assist in providing affected individuals with the medical services and support that they may desire.

While human sexuality is more complex than the reproductive and motivational behaviors observed in sheep or rodents, it is anticipated that the use of animal models such as the male oriented ram will help illuminate basic principles that apply to all species and which will be helpful in understanding the biology of human behaviors as well.

Here is what I take from that: There are a few people with rare disorders who this might help. But mostly, science is about discovery. It is about mapping the internal world, without knowing what you will find -- but with the faith and experience that understanding how biology works makes us better, gives us a foundation from which to learn more. It is what drives progress. And, on top of all that, it is often beautiful. Who would have thought a single gene could switch aggression to attraction, or male courtship to female? Who would have thought we could ever understand how our brain works, how and why it makes us do the things we do? Who wouldn't want to know?

I appreciate that some of you would say it is not worth it, if it means killing animals. Some of you would say that humans should not experiment on animals, at least on thinking feeling animals, for any reason, no matter how great the prize. In an ideal world, I would feel that way myself. Unfortunately, in this world, I realize that stopping animal experiments would mean an end to meaningful biology. You can make cells do a lot of things in a dish. What matters is what they do in real life, in real animals. Unfortunately, stopping animal research means stopping biology flat.

There is another discussion well worth having: which experiments are worth it? Is it worth killing an animal to get a life-saving cure? Is it worth it to get a piece of information that fills in a missing puzzle piece, something that could provide the entry point to dozens of life-saving cures? And which experiments are those, and which ones are not worth the sacrifice? It is something anyone who works with animals thinks about, a lot. Although I don't work with vertebrates now, I used to in my earlier years, and it is not fun. It is tremendously rewarding to be able to gain insight into a system so like ourselves, but it is not fun to kill.

So that is an important discussion, "which experiments are worth it?" The answer is not just up to the scientist -- vertebrate research is heavily regulated, with lengthy approval processes from the government, the state, and the university. In many places, your experiments need to be approved not just by administrators and fellow scientists, but also by members of the community, regular people without scientific training who are put there to make sure that your experiments not only make scientific sense but also make common sense, that they are consistent with what your neighbors would find reasonable.

Whether killing an animal is worth it for an experiment is an important and always welcome discussion. What's not welcome is lies. What's not welcome is propaganda. PETA has joined the company of intelligent designists and global warming deniers, those who misreport scientific research, cherry-pick results, and flat-out lie to further their political agenda. PETA picked Dr. Roselli because sheep are adorable, unlike mice or flies, and because gay rights is a hot-button issue. They lied about his work and his intention because they want to turn as much of the public as they can against scientists who use animals. Lying about and distorting science in a campaign against biology research is something I've come to expect from the right, from Kansas school boards and Sen. Santorum. We should not allow it to take root on the left.

Comments

[DemFromCT]

there is an anti-science strain on the left as well as on the right. I ahve nothing particularly good to say about PETA's choice of castigation here. Bad choice, bad politics. There are animal issues one can choose to explore (factory farming of chickens, making them more prone to bird flu and other illesses?) but I don't get it with this one.

[Warren]

I wouldn't worry too much about it -- PETA is taken seriously primarily by PETA. Their acts of terrorism are recognized by virtually everyone as unhinged, extremist and over the top. (Why they aren't being prosecuted by the DeptHomSec is something I find a little baffling.) They've been nuthatch escapees for more than a decade now, and are generally recognized as such by a stably large majority.

That they lie is also not, alas, a new development.

[emptypockets]

To my surprise (and education), commenters elsewhere are responding to this piece with a resounding "Duh." Apparently it's not that the anti-science groups on the left aren't recognized as such (which is what I thought was the case), but that PETA is taken for granted as a nuisance, kind of like mosquitos, in a way that for example intelligent designists aren't.

Not sure I get that. IDers clearly have more political power, but PETA I think causes more everyday impediments to actual research than the ID movement ever could.

[janinsanfran]

If PETA were a gay group, this would be more understandable to me (though not acceptable behavior.) Gay people have lots of experience with "sexuality research" that treated us no better than medical researchers treated the subjects of the Tuskeegee experiments. We know in our bones that "science" is socially conditioned in any particular historical era.

I do think human society is going to have a hard time assimilating the growing body of biological knowledge that seems to narrow the scope of human agency. But we are also having a hell of a time assimilating the enhanced potential for social control implicit in faster computer chips. The way forward has to be through, not by throwing up walls of ignorance.

[jonnybutter]

I'm going to be thinking and reading about this stuff all day, EP. Thanks for the great post. Absolutely fascinating.

Many of us have probably known people over the years who, frankly, hate and can't really tolerate other people, but love animals. I certainly have, and have thought of it as an interesting, rather suggestive anecdotal phenomenon, but never thought about it in any systematic way for all that. While the ethics of experimenting on, and even killing, living things is certainly fraught, to put it very mildly, what PETA did here (Roselli = Mengele) suggests a profound hostility to human animals, to our potential and our imagination.

The positions of our absolutist friends on the left (?) and the right are going to get only more tenuous in the coming years, not less. There is no escaping value judgements (ie judgements), and the instances for needing to make them - to trust ourselves as a species - will be coming at us faster and faster in the future, I would think. It's not hard to understand why a person might be disappointed or even deeply cynical about humans, but it makes for a rather absurd politics - an anti-politics, really. Whatever your reservations, you are - essentially - a fan of 'the team' (homo sapiens) or you aren't.

BTW, I find the excuse that the Dr might be trying to find a way to 'cure' same-sex attraction about as convincing as anything Tony Snow might say. Give me a friggin' break.

[P J Evans]

I wonder how this research connects with hormones like DES. (It's known to have major pre-natal effects on sexual organs; what else does it affect?)

[Powerpuff]

Sending PETA form letters to the university requesting de-funding of these experiments is hardly terroristic. Misguided, perhaps, but these people think sheep are as sacred as humans. Protesting the use of their tax dollars for these experiments is a legitimate political excercise.

When pharma starts advertising drugs to prevent the unborn from becoming homosexual, PETA will be exonerated. The marketing people are probably already working on the ad campaign.

[Robbie]

The grant application says: "This research also has broader implications for understanding the development and control of sexual motivation and mate selection across mammalian species, including humans." It's a fair bet that it's the word 'control' and not the word 'understanding' that has concerned the PETA folks. In this homophobic culture I wouldn't be so quick to label a study that is in part sold as increasing our understanding of how sexual motivation may be controlled as innocuous.

[emptypockets]

P J Evans, interesting question. I'd be going too far outside my field to guess (I had to google DES to learn it is a synthetic estrogen). But it does seem like Roselli's work is focused lately on the activity of enzymes that convert androgens to estrogens in the fetal brain.

Powerpuff, what I object to in this piece is PETA's lying about the facts of the research, much as those on the right lie about scientific studies to further their own political agendas. As I say, honest discussion (including in the form of protest) is welcome. Lying about what the research is or what it is intended for is unacceptable.

Gaining knowledge is, in itself, always for the better. If that knowledge is, at some point, exploited for evil, then that evil is what we will protest. But lying about research based on a paranoid fantasy that one claims will someday 'exonerate' the lies -- that is absurd.

[emptypockets]

Robbie, as someone who has to write these things myself, I can guarantee you that the word "control" there is used to mean "control by the body's neurological and hormonal systems" not "control by right wing homophobes." Roselli is a biologist not a social engineer -- and not an aspiring one either.

[Robbie]

I understand Roselli's meaning.

PETA unfairly and provocatively overstates the case when they say: "Roselli has made it very clear that he intends to use the findings of his experiments to 'cure' humans next". And you're right to call them on it. But to say that the grant application was 'completely innocuous' is wrong too. Roselli may not be a social engineer but those who decide what research gets funded may not be so innocent. And those who decide what use to make of the research the same. There may be people who don't know that, Roselli may be one, but it doesn't strike me as likely.

'Completely innocuous' is a pretty tough standard: (1. unlikely to offend: not intended to cause offense or provoke a strong reaction and unlikely to do so (an innocuous comment) 2. harmless: harmless in effect (an innocuous white powder). And so long as there are people who hope to 'cure' homosexuality such research is likely to provoke a strong reaction and may turn out not to be 'harmless in effect'.

[emptypockets]

The point is, the statement PETA cites could just as well be used as evidence to say that the ultimate goal of this research is to make more gays, or for that matter, to make humans more attracted to canines (if Sen. Santorum runs the funding agency). The statement is an honest (and I stand by "innocuous") assertion that it would be interesting to understand evolutionarily conserved mechanisms that control sexual behavior.

If the funding agency -- or the guy who reads the publications -- or the drug agency who pursues the findings -- or an evil foreign dictatorship -- has a malevolent master plan for how to apply this research, then that's what we will go after. But the research here is designed to further understanding, and understanding is good.

[Jim]

I read the good Dr.'s statement as trying to further understanding for sexual behavior. Could that understanding be used in an unethical way? Sure, but almost any understanding could. My opinion (I am not a biologist) is that people with homosexual tendencies somehow have it in them. That it is an inate part of them. I hope someday we find out the truth, whatever it may be. Railling against the truth is like trying to deny the laws of gravity exist.

I see Dr. Roselli's studies might lead to a better understanding of human sexual preferences. For some sexual preferences it might lead to methods of correcting the behavior. (specifically paediphilia) (I don't think homosexual behavior needs fixing.)

[jonnybutter]

But there are always people who want to use science to further their own social agendas, Robbie. Does that mean that you attack the scientists? I really think that the 'gay cure' thing is a red herring. As janinsanfran points out, PETA is hardly a gay rights group.

I do think human society is going to have a hard time assimilating the growing body of biological knowledge that seems to narrow the scope of human agency.

Key words there are 'seems to'. In fact, science is all about broadening the scope of human agency - science IS 'human agency' par excellence. Seems to me that that's the rub.

[Robbie]

You say: 'The point is, the statement PETA cites could just as well be used as evidence to say that the ultimate goal of this research is to make more gays'.

There's no chance of that. Not in this country. Not on this planet. Not at this time.

What troubles me about your position is not its bias which I share but its absoluteness. Pure science is an ideal that has to contend with the reality of an impure world. Let's say my field is demography and I live in Germany in 1940 and I'm just wondering where Jews live. So I start putting together a data base. And what if when questioned about it I say 'If someone wants to do something wrong with the scientific information I gather then society can address that then. My research could just as easily be used to facilitate Jewish population expansion.' ?

I'll side with knowing against not knowing. But I also know that the research choices we make happen in a social and political context and have social and political repercussions.
PETA was manipulative and dishonest but you can't get from there to 'looking into what controls sexual motivation' is completely innocuous.

[Andrew Bellemer]

Robbie: By your definition, it seems that 'innocuous research' would be research that has no potential implications for society, medicine, or industry. In that case, does 'innocuous research' actually exist and, if it does, is it really even worth doing?

[emptypockets]

you're extrapolating from a magnifying glass to a sniper rifle.

[Interrobang]

Robbie, someone already did that, in exactly the situation you propose. The "database" was census information, and the people who made the technology were IBM's subsidiary, Hollerith. Are you trying to tell me that census-takers are evil, and/or that the census-takers in Nazi-occupied Europe were absolutely in league with the Nazis? If anyone's culpable there for the misuse of technology, it was Hollerith, who leased punchcard tabulators to the Nazis and knew damn well what they were doing with them.

Wanting to know what makes people (or sheep) tick isn't the problem; the problem is people who might exploit it later on. Flattening an entire subfield of biology just on the off chance that it could be misused is absurd.

[Inoculated Mind]

PETA already crossed the line when their members were caught disposing of the dead bodies of pet animals that they killed - while lying to the people who donated them by saying that they were going to find homes for them. Save Animals - Stop PETA. Mmm pita... with lamb. :-q

[kippy]

Two points.

1) PETA is only interested in this issue becasue it is a redmeat issue for their left of center base. It's a way for them to draw more credibility amongst people they see as like minded. Think the war on Christmas. It's a fundraising ploy (which does not excuse it's outright falsehoods).

2) This whole debate about is this research innocuous misses the point. Andrew Bellemer has it perfectly correct. Any research worth doing has potential social/technological/etc implications. As does this research. But the problem in this case is the homophobic society we live in. We need to combat that. Because one day there will be a way to control human sexuality, be it through hormones, or intimidation of homosexuals... (Wait that already happens to thousands of gay people who are shamed and terrified into living lies everyday.)

Attacking this research is a lot easier than working on the real problems with our homophobic society. But it's not going to change a thing.

[emptypockets]

kippy, well put.

[Warren]

Powerpuff:

Sending PETA form letters to the university requesting de-funding of these experiments is hardly terroristic.

If that were all they were doing I wouldn't have used the word "terrorism" to describe what they do. However, PETA is linked to the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front -- and those are terrorist organizations by any standard.

When pharma starts advertising drugs to prevent the unborn from becoming homosexual, PETA will be exonerated. The marketing people are probably already working on the ad campaign.

That'll be quite a trick, since in order to even make such a drug available we'd have to be sure that:

1. There is such a thing as a "gay gene";
2. We'd isolated it; and
3. Tripping the gene would actually work -- i.e., there'd be no social factors involved in homosexuality, no nurture, just nature.

And then there are those tricky laws against medical experiments on humans -- and particularly fetuses, which the right-wing nutjobs have been insisting are human from conception.

Short version: We can't even get past harvesting stem cells. You think the rightie-uptighties are going to let "godless scientists" mess around with the human genetic code?

It's naive in the extreme to think there'll be "drugs to prevent the unborn from becoming homosexual", and disingenuous in the extreme to bring forth this specter as though it's something to be genuinely alarmed about.

Please try to have facts in hand before attempting to argue facts.

[Jim]

But Warren, don't you see the irony? Since the rightie-uptighties KNOW that people choose to be homosexual (I am sure it must be in the Bible somewhere.) then there can't possibly be a drug which alters their natural condition. Because if there was a drug that changed their genetic code so they weren't homosexual then the rightie-uptighties would have to admit that people are BORN with this sexual orientation. (and thus "converting" them from a choice would be impossible. It is impossible, and doesn't work, but the rightie-uptighties put their fingers in their ears and say "neener-neener".)

Personally, I think homosexuality is mainly determined genetically and we shouldn't berate or discriminate against homosexuals. (no, I am not homosexual, but I work with some people who say they are homosexual. In my workplace I don't notice a difference in their performance vs people who I believe to be hetrosexual. I don't ask people what their sexual orientation is; it isn't important to the job.)

[Robbie]

I've been out and about. Thanks for all the response.

Andrew: I wasn’t the one who introduced the idea of completely innocuous research. I haven’t thought much about whether it exists or if it does exist whether it would be worth doing but you’re probably right to doubt both of those propositions. I certainly don’t think that only completely innocuous research ought to be supported. The fears of misuse of the results of this research that the PETA people were addressing/exploiting are not trivial or unreasonable which is what is implied by saying that the research is completely innocuous.

Emptypockets: I don’t see how I’m extrapolating at all. I’m challenging the suggestion that seeking information is always politically, socially, morally neutral, (completely innocuous) and that such considerations ought not be part of our discussion about the value of any given research project.

Interrobang: Yes, indeed. Flattening an entire subfield of biology just on the off chance that it could be misused is absurd. I never suggested anything remotely like that. What I said is research may have consequences and it’s legitimate to consider them when deciding what to research or what research to support.

Kippy: The debate about whether this research is or is not innocuous may be beside your point; it’s not beside mine. Address that point or don’t address it but please don’t misrepresent it. I have not attacked this research. I said (and you seem to agree) that under our present circumstances learning how to control sexual orientation may pose problems. And your point that: “Any research worth doing has potential social/technological/etc implications. As does this research” agrees with rather than contradicts what I’m saying. You’re disagreeing with Emptypockets who wrote that looking into the mechanisms for controlling human sexual attraction is (once again, this is where we started) ‘completely innocuous’.

I just heard (on TV I can’t remember the source) someone talking about how Einstein came to regret the letter he wrote to Roosevelt recommending the Manhattan Project. I hope with all my heart never to have to wrestle with questions and responsibilities that immense. But the specifics aside I think its right to remind ourselves that the search for information cannot be wholly divorced from the context in which the search is happening.

[crab nebula]

I think there is a significant behavioral/life experience component (not "choice" at all) in determining sexual preference. In some individual cases biology may dominate. Maybe the majority, I don't know. But basically, there's no universal explanation for the wide range of human sexual behavior.

But those who wish to assert that sexual preference is exclusively or mostly biological seem to me to have just as much of a political axe to grind as the fundamentalists.