HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
June 30, 2006 “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." That gem, courtesy of Mark Twain, still rings true: the great – and dangerous - thing about statistics is you can generally get them to say anything you want. A salesman, for example, could boast in a job interview that he increased business in his territory by 50%. Impressive. What he might forget to mention is that he actually added one client to the previous total of two. Not so impressive. Statistical acrobatics and legerdemain are most popular of course, in politics, where activists on both the Left and the Right are desperate for data – economic, scientific, or otherwise – to prove that their position has been correct all along. I bring this up because I just about choked on my corn flakes this week when I saw a headline on the BBC website: “Womb Environment Makes Men Gay.” (Having been in a womb myself at one point, this sort of news can grab a fella's attention.) The article covered how Anthony Bogaert, a professor at Brock University in Canada, had done a sibling analysis of 944 gay and straight men. Professor Bogaert was building on a previous study that had shown men with more older brothers have a higher tendency to be gay. The goal of the new report was to find out if there was any statistical difference between biological brothers (those that shared the same mother) and adopted or half siblings. The Brock study found the link with homosexuality only existed when the brothers shared the some biological mother. As a result, Bogaert concluded that homosexuality must be a prenatal phenomenon. So, there you have it: a professor at research powerhouse Brock University - “The Chico State of the North” - throws some sibling data for 900-plus men into an Excel sheet, crunches a few numbers, and the debate on homosexuality is hereby over. To everyone in the “nurture vs. nature” camp: thanks for playing. We have some wonderful parting gifts for you. Gay rights groups, of course, were all over the report before the ink dried. Andy Forrest, spokesman for a group called Stonewall, said, “Increasingly, credible evidence appears to indicate that being gay is genetically determined rather than being a so-called lifestyle choice.” As for the “why” behind their conclusion, Professor Bogaert can only speculate: there “may be” a maternal memory in the womb from male births; the mother’s body “may” suspect the male fetus is “foreign.” The resulting antibodies created “may” affect the developing male brain. Well, that clears it up. The good professor seems to think that homosexuality is just a big, prenatal allergic reaction. Someone grab the Benadryl! I can picture the press conference at Bogaert’s office: “…and in conclusion, it’s clear that the homosexuality is genetic. Why? Well, who’s to say? But the results speak for themselves! Anyone up for lunch? I know a great Dim Sum place around the corner.” Even taking the homosexual issue out of the equation, there are some serious questions behind the science of the study and the conclusion it purports to reach. Aside from the raw number of siblings and biological relation, did the professor and his team bother to check on any environmental factors that could have come into play: perhaps a distant father; a mother who doted too much, or favored her older offspring at the expense of the younger ones? The naturally stronger bond between parents and their biological offspring would only serve to enhance those factors. And what about lesbianism? If an autoimmune response to male embryos causes homosexuality, what accounts for the same in the fairer sex? It would seem that Professor Bogaert did not want to look any further and was pleased by the results that his data set so flimsily supported. In limiting the scope of any possible environmental factors (other than how much time the siblings spent being raised with each other), Professor Bogaert’s study is essentially a tautology: it must be genetic or environmental, and it can’t be environmental. And, like bad Supreme Court precedent, Bogaert uses a study of dubious conclusiveness as the foundation for his own work. Whether it’s nature or nurture, the debate over homosexuality is far too complicated to be reduced to a study as simple as the one from Brock. Objectively speaking, both sides of the argument deserve a meatier addition to the table. And while groups like Stonewall are cheering an outcome in their favor, they do themselves something of a disservice by making it appear to be more than it is. Wanting something to be true does not make it so. Even if you think the statistics are on your side. ------------ About Matthew Bastian: Recovering socialst, part-time drummer, long-suffering Brewers fan, and all-around beach hound, Mr. Bastian lives in central New Jersey. Email Matthew Bastian: mbastian19@hotmail.com Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal). |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
