Science and Homosexuality

[gb2000ie]

So I guess that the British researchers who tried to prove that they could identify gay men by their frequency of eye-blinks were a blip on the otherwise untarnished radar of legitmate British science without hidden commercial agenda? That was the Hamer study, conducted at University of East London and at King's College in 2003, and was discovered to have been funded and instigated by conservative Christian (sic) patrons.

With due respect to you personally, I doubt that any country on this planet can assert that their science research is mostly pure and unadulterated by special funding with an agenda.

I didn't say we had none of the contagion, but that it has not completely taken over yet. I said there is still real research going on here without commercial or religious agendas. The fact that there is one study that was funded by a religious group does not mean all science in Europe is!

Also - just because a study was funded by a Christian group does not automatically mean it is flawed. The nice thing with science is that you have to publish your method and results so that others can validate your results. It sometimes takes a little longer than it should, but frauds get found out. Just look at what happened to Andrew Wakefield, the instigator of all that vaccine BS. Yes - it took a decade, but he was found out and his results conclusively proved to be fraudulent and his papers revoked.

When the good peer reviewed journals like Nature get taken over or go away, that's when I start to really worry.

B.

 

[ritsuka]

So I guess that the British researchers who tried to prove that they could identify gay men by their frequency of eye-blinks were a blip on the otherwise untarnished radar of legitmate British science without hidden commercial agenda? That was the Hamer study, conducted at University of East London and at King's College in 2003, and was discovered to have been funded and instigated by conservative Christian (sic) patrons.

With due respect to you personally, I doubt that any country on this planet can assert that their science research is mostly pure and unadulterated by special funding with an agenda.

Yes, corporate funded science for hire is most definitely embedded inside the establishment in Europe. This fact is easily blurred by the idea that the most mainstream science coming from elite universities is always correct, and by uncritical, pretentious views of what "science" is and where it should go.

 

[gb2000ie]

Yes, corporate funded science for hire is most definitely embedded inside the establishment in Europe. This fact is easily blurred by the idea that the most mainstream science coming from elite universities is always correct, and by uncritical, pretentious views of what "science" is and where it should go.

I think Europeans are rank-amateurs at corporate funded science compared to the Americans, and I think that anyone who thinks all science is right doesn't understand science at all. Truth trickles up slowly through experimentation and validation of the results of others, and it takes a heavy-weight of evidence to shift scientific opinion. Some people see this inertia as a bad thing, to me it's a good thing, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof etc..

Anyhow - I think we're drifting off he point just a tad.

Science has already contributed a lot to our understanding of sexuality and will continue to do so as long as humans are curious - which is hopefully for ever. Just think how far we've come since even Victorian times.

B.

 

[hawtsean]

It sometimes takes a little longer than it should, but frauds get found out. Just look at what happened to Andrew Wakefield, the instigator of all that vaccine BS. Yes - it took a decade, but he was found out and his results conclusively proved to be fraudulent and his papers revoked.

And many innocent people were duped and perhaps had their lives affected negatively due to the length of time it took (to out the fraud) and the general gullibility of the general scientific establishment and its persistence on accepting the status quo. Science needs to learn the same lesson that businessmen know - FOLLOW THE MONEY to see who benefits from an announced "discovery."

Also - just because a study was funded by a Christian group does not automatically mean it is flawed.

Couldn't disagree more! Any time that ultra conservative right wing thinkers are in favour of something, it has proven 100% of the time to be against the interests and betterment of anyone who doesn't think as they do or adopt their belief structures. That would include the gay community of which we are both a part.

When the good peer reviewed journals like Nature get taken over or go away, that's when I start to really worry.

And how can we know it hasn't happened already? More and more top researchers are being co-opted, as fewer and fewer funds are available from sources other than those with a hidden agenda. Read up on the struggle that Albert Einstein had in the reverse of what we are discussing. The supposed rightness of the establishment labelled him as a radical and faulty thinker. Had they prevailed, the study of physics would have been seriously retarded for many years. Lawyers always ask (when money is involved) - "cui bono"......who benefits? We ought to do likewise with all science and claims of discovery.

 

[gb2000ie]

I've worken in academia research for quite some time now, and I know where the money came from for my work and that of my colleagues. I also know that there was no pressure on us to get a given result. With the exception of the theology department, there was no money coming from churches, and corporate money only came in to a very small number of research groups who work on very comercialisable stuff in biotech and engineering.

As for the vaccine debacle, the problem there was not scientific inertia, but the anti-vax mob sticking both fingers in their ears and loudly screaming lalalalala each time any study showed anything they didn't like. At no point was the anti vax stuff based on any sort of scientific consensus, Wakefield was controversial from day 1, and counter results started flowing in straight away.

B.

 

[cHIEN87]

Re: the first post

1. Evolution of a trait only matters when that trait is heritable, which science has not yet determined for homosexuality. Is there a gay gene? So far, no. Bringing evolution into a discussion about homosexuality is moot at this point.

2. So what if homosexuality is natural or not? So what if it's found in nature, or whether it's determined genetically? That line of thinking ultimately leads to the naturalistic fallacy (that which is natural is good). Being natural (found in nature) doesn't imply inherent goodness. Even if homosexuality is found to be unnatural, that there is some chemical in the water that changes people into gays, that doesn't change the fact that homosexuality doesn't harm anyone (and therefore "not bad" by almost all standards).

 

[hawtsean]

Standards are artifical and human-created-----which means they may not have any true relevance to humankind other than for those who wish to adhere to a given standard. Of course, some standards (laws, regulations, etc) are created for the safety and betterment of all. Sexuality and the varied practices surrounding human sexual interaction are one major area where standards are generally a hindrance and a means of attempting to exert undue and unwelcome interference in other humans' lives.

 

[hawtsean]

I've worken in academia research for quite some time now, and I know where the money came from for my work and that of my colleagues. I also know that there was no pressure on us to get a given result.

B.

I take you at your word, B. However I doubt very much that the majority of scientists in any country on earth are as scrupulous about these matters as you are. The "publish or perish" syndrome has never been worse - and getting funding in order to validate and publish one's findings often means sleeping with the devil and signing your scientific ass away to him.

 

[topdog]

...The "publish or perish" syndrome has never been worse - and getting funding in order to validate and publish one's findings often means sleeping with the devil and signing your scientific ass away to him.

As opposed to...what? What should scientists do instead?

 

[gb2000ie]

I take you at your word, B. However I doubt very much that the majority of scientists in any country on earth are as scrupulous about these matters as you are. The "publish or perish" syndrome has never been worse - and getting funding in order to validate and publish one's findings often means sleeping with the devil and signing your scientific ass away to him.

Of course publish or perish is is the way of academia, that is NOT the same as 'publish what you're told to say'!

Within the Irish University system, the vast majority of the money comes through independent funding agencies, who distribute the money based on open competitions. The money those agencies get is public money, sometimes Irish public money, sometimes European. These agencies put out calls for proposals, people submit detailed (HORRIBLY detailed) proposals, those are judged based on pre-published criterea, and the best ones funded.

There is also a minority of research, from my direct experience, as very small minority, that gets money from other sources, mostly corporatinos or industry groups. I've never heard of science in Ireland funded by religions groups. Though un-surprisingly there are church-funded researchers in theology and to some extent in history and perhaps philosophy too, but not in science.

I have a decade of experience in Irish academia (that is after graduating with my science degree). My closest relationship is with the science faculty, but I've worked on a lot of cross-discipline stuff, so I've also worked with people in what Americans would call the liberal arts too. I'm not guessing here, or spreading hear-say, I'm speaking from direct first-hand experience.

B.

 

[hawtsean]

I have a decade of experience in Irish academia (that is after graduating with my science degree). ............I'm not guessing here, or spreading hear-say, I'm speaking from direct first-hand experience.

B.

I would never presume to doubt that you sincerely believe what you've posted, and have experienced first-hand legitimate research. I simply don't believe that it represents the majority of science any more. Perhaps that's the simple way to state my position.

 

[gb2000ie]

I would never presume to doubt that you sincerely believe what you've posted, and have experienced first-hand legitimate research. I simply don't believe that it represents the majority of science any more. Perhaps that's the simple way to state my position.

I started by saying that I was only speaking from a European perspective, and I laid out how I came to my conclusion.

What perspective are you coming form? What experiences have you based your view on?

I have a feeling things are much different in the US - though not yet to the point that no science can be trusted, not even nearly, but to the point that you always have to ask "who paid for this" when evaluating a press release.

I spent a few years collaborating with American scientists from two US universities, and even with NASA scientists. I know for sure that it is not true that there is no real science in the US. I also know that there are places in the US like the Discovery Institute. What I don't know from first hand experience is the ratio between sound and dodgey science in the US.

I'm fairly sure that in non-controversial parts of science things are fine, the problems come when science meets money or faith. No vested interests give a crap about the mating habits of the red-nosed-bat of Upper Mongolia, or the precise atomic weight of Einsteinium, where you run into problems is when you start looking at the age of the earth, evolution, medical trials, climate science, and studies of homosexuality. You can think of it like a Venn Diagram, you have three circles, all things science cares about, all things big money care about, and all things religious groups care about. You need to worry where one or more of the other two circles overlap the science circle.

B.

 

[hawtsean]

What perspective are you coming form? What experiences have you based your view on?.

From both a North American perspective and from having observed and noted (independent of the press) the output of science as it pertains to the medical and social needs of humanity.

........... where you run into problems is when you start looking at the age of the earth, evolution, medical trials, climate science, and studies of homosexuality. You can think of it like a Venn Diagram, you have three circles, all things science cares about, all things big money care about, and all things religious groups care about. You need to worry where one or more of the other two circles overlap the science circle.
B.

I believe you've actually answered your own question........in that science's interests are overlapped and critically affected (at least in the availability of unadulterated research findings) in those areas of geo-sciences, medicine, climatology and sexuality/human dynamics.

 

[topdog]

... I believe you've actually answered your own question........in that science's interests are overlapped and critically affected (at least in the availability of unadulterated research findings) in those areas of geo-sciences, medicine, climatology and sexuality/human dynamics.

Research findings are not "adulterated" by the source of funding. They are only adulterated if the method is found to be flawed. It doesn't matter if a scientist gets funding from the American Nazi Party - if the methodology is doented and correct and the findings can be reproduced, then the result is valid.

The only way to invalidate it is to use the same methodology and come up with different results, or to point out a flaw in the scientific process.

You don't get to ignore results just because you don't like where the money came from.

Now, funding may influence what work gets money and what doesn't. But once the study is underway, the scientific method is going to carry it to its conclusion. Any researcher that fudged results will only be exposed as a fraud when that work is reviewed and reproduced (because other people won't get the same result). At that point that person's career is over.

 

[gb2000ie]

Just to be clear though - the overlap of special interests and science is not 100% flawed, but there is bad science in those areas, so you need to be sure you sceptic circuits are activated. You have to take the time to dig a little deeper to understand how much credence to give any study. Not all studies are wrong or suspect, but some are.

The way places like the Discovery institute work is that they are a vocal minority. They are only there to throw in some doubt. They are not a majority, but they don't have to be to achieve their goal - which is simple, to confuse people enough that they stop caring about science. You don't need to win the scientific argument, you just need to side-line it from the public discourse.

Climate science is a wonderful example - a dispassionate look at the preponderance of the evidence paints a very clear picture - we know that CO2 traps energy, and that that extra energy will affect earth's climate. Where there is a lack of certainty is ONLY in the details of the change, the extremity of the change, and rapidity of the change. Despite this, all it took was a small minority of corrupt science to throw around enough doubt to confuse a science illiterate media and to create a perceived scientific controversy that doesn't exist if you take the time to really look.

I guess what I'm diving at is that you shouldn't let the bad elements in science poison the whole endeavour, you need to persist, but persist with an awareness and understanding about the ugly realities of our world.

B.

 

[gb2000ie]

Research findings are not "adulterated" by the source of funding. They are only adulterated if the method is found to be flawed. It doesn't matter if a scientist gets funding from the American Nazi Party - if the methodology is doented and correct and the findings can be reproduced, then the result is valid.

The only way to invalidate it is to use the same methodology and come up with different results, or to point out a flaw in the scientific process.

You don't get to ignore results just because you don't like where the money came from.

Now, funding may influence what work gets money and what doesn't. But once the study is underway, the scientific method is going to carry it to its conclusion. Any researcher that fudged results will only be exposed as a fraud when that work is reviewed and reproduced (because other people won't get the same result). At that point that person's career is over.

I agree with what you are saying, but there is another way science can be subtly corrupted by vested interests - and that is pressure not to publish inconvenient results.

You are right that publishing fraudulent results is dangerous (again, look at Wakefield or the cold fusion guys), but you can delay and obstruct science by keeping findings you don't like from being published. This temporarily skews the preponderance of evidence, extends uncertainty and delays clarity.

Again though - over time, you can't hold back the tide. No interest can control 100% of scientists in any field, so slowly, truth will always out. Ask the Tobacco industry how their attempts to pervert science played out over the long-run!

B.

 

[hawtsean]

Research findings are not "adulterated" by the source of funding. They are only adulterated if the method is found to be flawed. It doesn't matter if a scientist gets funding from the American Nazi Party - if the methodology is doented and correct and the findings can be reproduced, then the result is valid.

Agreed, but there have been both flawed methodologies in some past medical research (in the form of no control groups or handpicked ones), and as gb pointed out there may be (and definitely has been) a suppression of results that don't validate a particular point of view. This has happened in medical research regarding cold and flu medication trials where the product under investigation is plant-based rather than laboratory synthesized. I'm certain that other instances abound.

Sociology is rife with bad research which sometimes takes years for sufficient peer review to kick it out of the realm of believed 'science'. One of the chief problems is that - once a tenured professor/researcher publishes something, even if it's totally off-the-wall and glaringly incorrect or invalid - few other peers are eager to jump right in and critique the work until an informal consensus seems to have been reached regarding the need to disavow invalid work. A notable example of this is Dr. Murray Straus of the University of New Hampshire in the USA - whose flawed and severely biased works pertaining to parent/child interactions (specifically in punishment and discipline) took several years to get kicked out of mainstream acceptability. Despite almost every peer in the world dumping on his work, Dr. Straus still has tenure and still screws around with bogus questionnaires to selected groups that simply prove his hypotheses.

It's this type of situation that exists in all kinds of scientific research, that gives me serious doubts when I see any findings.