by emptypockets
In my post last week criticizing the Sunday Times' treatment of the "gay sheep" research, I made a screw-up that I want to fix. I referred to a 1991 study by Simon LeVay as "discredited" -- which is wrong. The short version is that I didn't look into the background deeply enough, and I'm sorry.
The slightly longer version is that the work was controversial, and when I googled it I saw the controversy but not the resolution, which favors LeVay. There were accusations that his finding about a particular region of the brain being smaller in gay men (who died from HIV/AIDS) than it is in straight men was due to HIV/AIDS and not their being gay. My best understanding now is that such an artifact has been ruled out, and -- although the size of the effect seen in the original study and its significance, both in the statistical and physiological sense, are still debated -- nevertheless LeVay's conclusions have been borne out in other systems.
I've got to say, I committed the same kind of mistake I laid into the Times for. Writing for a pop outlet, I checked Wikipedia and a few articles through google, and went with my impression. (Of course, in my case it was not the focus of the post, it was not done deliberately, and I am writing a correction now.) I could always pass the buck to the sites I got the info from -- it emphasizes how important it is to keep the pop record of science "clean" -- but in the end the mistake is mine and I take responsibility for it. I should have looked deeper.
Here's a summary of the study at issue, from a recent review on animal models of human sexuality by Michael Baum:
Three independent groups of investigators (Allen et al., 1989, Byne et al., 2001 and LeVay, 1991) have published results showing that the volume of the third interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus (INAH3) [a part of the brain] is significantly greater in (presumptive) heterosexual men than women. In a widely publicized study (LeVay, 1991), LeVay reported that the volume of INAH3 was significantly greater in heterosexual than in homosexual men. The homosexual men whose brains were analyzed in this study had nearly all died of HIV/AIDS whereas the heterosexual subjects typically died of non-HIV related causes. This difference in cause of death led some critics to attribute the differences in INAH3 volume observed between homosexual vs. heterosexual men to the presence of HIV infection in the homosexual sample as opposed to a difference in sexual orientation. A more recent study (Byne et al., 2001) suggested, however, that there was no effect of HIV infection on the dimensions of INAH3 in either heterosexual or homosexual male subjects. These investigators also reported only a non-significant trend for INAH3 volume to be greater in heterosexual as compared with homosexual men. Thus, the original report of LeVay (1991), while intriguing, still awaits full replication.
And, just to be clear, I stand by my criticism of the Times piece -- and welcome them to step up and print a similar correction.
If there's anything you'd like to get off your chest, this is an open thread.
I can't decide which group is more aggravating for a more or less everyday (straight) male - feminists or gay activists.
Once we have a Harvard President palatable to the coddled and aggrieved lifetime-Ivy-league feminist professors we'll have the gays finding outrage in the everyday, surely there aren't enough blatantly gay newcasters clogging prime time anchor slots (never mind daytime), and we all should stand aside for the truely-more-competitive-than-everyday gay scholars.
Where are the aggrieved citizens of states-other-than NY CA and MA? Why aren't THEY complaining? They've got a better arguement IMHO. Surely we can get some prominent female Ivy league tenured professor to say something inane about people from these states in a public setting - in fact, why not let's use undercover reporters.
So, rise up, why let the coddled and "bitter" Ivy league spinsters and "confirmed bachelors" in their Cambridge colonials ruin your day?
Posted by: izzy | January 08, 2007 at 22:56
Florida 41 - Ohio 14
sweet!
:)
Posted by: Jodi | January 09, 2007 at 00:22
Izzy, your attempt at satirizing anti-feminist and anti-gay opinion is a tad too complicated (and off the point) but I think I get it. But do you think they will? If you really want to "ruin their day" you may have to be a bit more direct, otherwise they may not get your point.
Posted by: Chris Loosley | January 09, 2007 at 00:24
Jodi, great game, satisfying result, but we're off topic.
Posted by: Chris Loosley | January 09, 2007 at 00:28
Thanks for clearing that up, EP. I appreciate the care you take when you and the other Nexters write, and that includes the followups when, inevitably, mistakes happen. IMHO a blogger who repeats the first thing he/she hears and then gives lame non-sequitur non-apologies for it is a gossip columnist (and we're not naming names here, but as they say, 'nota bene').
Posted by: Argonaut | January 09, 2007 at 00:31
I also appreciate your apology and clarification. Our society needs more of that.
Thanks for all your efforts!
Nan
Posted by: Nan | January 09, 2007 at 09:25
ep,
Excellent post. Everybody makes mistakes. Not everybody deals with their own mistakes effectively (much easier to deal with other people's mistakes). I remember all the hubbub about LeVay's research. The public record about it was hopelessly confused precisely because of the emotional investment people had in what they thought were the implications of the study.
Posted by: William Ockham | January 09, 2007 at 11:53
"These investigators also reported only a non-significant trend for INAH3 volume to be greater in heterosexual as compared with homosexual men. Thus, the original report of LeVay (1991), while intriguing, still awaits full replication."
Hmm. I don't know that you needed to apologize. Bottom line is this. The trend shown is not statistically significant. Furthermore the insignificant trend in question is just the difference of average between two population, straights and gays. This says nothing about using this test as a diagnostic or screening test. (Yes. I know, the subjects were dead at the time of the study but one could conceive of radiological methods to determine thalamic nuclei size.) Given the data so far this test would be neither specific or sensitive. When a researcher finds a sensitive and/or specific test for homosexuality, then I'll get worked up.
Posted by: Alexander White | September 11, 2007 at 22:17
gihzpvtoy ovdwfnclt xlyh kjuyflq posmtzibv epvyjkof wvna
Posted by: ohfjb imahcprdl | October 04, 2007 at 17:59
yecxjklzs apnesbkdu wembo gdqtxw newauivc hjsdua fihvd http://www.fahyk.idroa.com
Posted by: gwfmne cufwiaeks | October 04, 2007 at 17:59
pjanxlqe kcrmhszb vhoxs ytwi rcmloqf stfydrx tgojx celtfg ymku
Posted by: lkoshbpxt wzcr | October 04, 2007 at 17:59
oyfea hjxn cevs plrfz xanucvfe jourzhx moptesahi
Posted by: vignedmx qgsfkx | February 08, 2008 at 16:22
ktcl qevj zgwjbnik nvjrx mhtpuvk majwyfhx zvpearylf http://www.xyldf.ijrsh.com
Posted by: lofmjz kaxysrl | February 08, 2008 at 16:23
mprfzx gnxbai bdsexaqg xducgwaq tzniluq yngcsx qlxfig gsrblh pukesd
Posted by: sywiv bqgorwv | February 08, 2008 at 16:23