Sexual orientation reversed in fruit flies with single gene

.
Fruit Fly orientation altered using a single gene.

Female fruit fly performed male courtship behaviors for other females after this single gene was altered. The reverse was done with male fruit flies.
www.livescience.com...

In prairie voles monogamy and parenting attention by the males was affected by lengthing DNA length infront of a particular gene. More interestingly this was done with non-coding [junk] DNA, not by altering an actual gene itself.
www.nytimes.com...

If you listen to the researcher talking on NPR's 'Science Friday'
when questioned about a 'gay gene' he rapidly distances himself from it.
It has become such a political hot potato that everyone runs from it.
Religious politics have begun to taint the willingness of science researchers to confront the religious bigotry for fear of losing research dollars.

Look at what Bush has done with stem cell research dollars.
Other nations are moving ahead with the science while this nation is crippling itself with religious ignorance.

If people realized a person was born with the sexual orientation, they might have to face up to the fact they are barbarians in their treatment of gay and bisexual people.

Religion promotes barbarism and not scientific enlightenment.
.

I'm confused.

Is this supposed to be a discussion of the science that took place? Or is this supposed to be another "The Bush administration is personally responsible for all that is bad in the world" threads?

You left it really unclear which angle you were going for.

.
Well to be clear, I am gay. So I can't help but find the Republicans and Bush adminstration who pander to religious ignorance for political purposes pretty disgusting.

I get tired of being the moral dumping ground for a lot of intellectually lazy morons, simply because i happen to be gay and ostensibly they happen to be straight.

That said, it is pretty interesting that the effect in the prairie voles was achieved by simply lengthing the non-coding DNA prior to the actual gene. It implies that what appears to be non-coding DNA has actual consequences. That runs somewhat counter to the recent example of a mouse [or rat] that was produced with all of the non-coding DNA removed.

What are the effects of non-coding DNA?
Are telemeres considered non-coding DNA? they certainly have an effect on the reproduction spans of individual cells.
.

Originally posted by slank
Well to be clear, I am gay. So I can't help but find the Republicans and Bush adminstration who pander to religious ignorance for political purposes pretty disgusting.

I get tired of being the moral dumping ground for a lot of intellectually lazy morons, simply because i happen to be gay and ostensibly they happen to be straight.

I'm Christian and a Republican. Maybe we aren't so different after all.

I also am tired of being blamed for the problems of the homosexual community and being the dumping ground for all the hatred coming from that sexual preference group, when poll after poll show that the VAST MAJORITY of Americans are not in favor of gay marriages. This is the only "political purpose" the Bush administration has concerning homosexuals.

Referring to Christian Republicans (about 50% of the US population) as intellectually lazy morons? Isn't that some kind of violation of the ATS code? You are spewing forth the same hatred that you are accusing others of.

So, maybe you should just join hands with those who hate homosexuals and the two groups can vent their hatred at someone else.


note: not going into the DNA stuff here. had to clear the accusations first.

PLEASE stop talking about politics. This is science and technology. Post in PTS for politics. Now...

When I read about both of these in the Science Times I was wowed. The ramifications for this sort of thing are amazing. It's the start of gene profiling, among other things. If we can start to determine these sort of things from the start (sexual orientation and parenting) then parents can start to chose who they want as their kids. (Gattaca)

If we can start to determine these sort of things from the start (sexual orientation and parenting) then parents can start to chose who they want as their kids. (Gattaca)

I really have to wonder if this will ever be truely possible. The more we learn about the role genes play, the more we discover they are much more an influence rather than a set rule, with particular genetic attributes being predispositioned, while still requring proper environmental and development conditions to form a character based on these genes.

I listened to these reports on NPR when they first went public and they were interviewing one of the researchers.. woman called in talking about her gay adopted son the similarities between her and her sister whom has a gay biological son. I dont believe the woman stated how old her son was when she adopted him, but if he was an infant I would assume he was predispositioned towards homosexuality, with some sort of characteristic of the mother/environment developing the influence of the gene.

It is interesting to note that homosexuality has had a fairly consistant presence throughout human history with a perceived sharp rise over the past 100 years (although this could be due to lowered inhibitions of the public). If this rise is indeed a result of biological changes, then I would suspect overpopulation as the catalyst. I read somewhere of a report of fishtanks packed full of fish, wall to wall gill to gill, frequently resulted in same sex pairings. Homosexuality could easily be one way evolution plays population police.

on the subject of genes..what if they find a gene that predispose`s some people to commit violent crimes??..will this mean that we can then detain these people on the supposition that they MIGHT commit a violent crime??
even if no crime has taken place???

thoughts on this please??

For what it's worth, this was posted yesterday here. Never got upgraded though, and just kinda fell through the new-post cracks.

I'd like to reiterate my question in that thread: scientists are always talking about "(de)activating" a particular gene. Is that something that can be done at any time during the life of the person/animal/plant, or is it only before "conception"? Is activating/deactivating genes the basis for gene therapy that I hear thrown around a lot?

I personally think the finding is interesting, aside from any moral/ethical implications it may have. If nothing else, it may lessen the nature vs. nurture arguments, and therefore possibly lessen any arguments against homosexual adoptions. Be interesting to see what happens.

will this mean that we can then detain these people on the supposition that they MIGHT commit a violent crime??

This has been an on and off hot topic, but I dont think anything will really come of it beyond parental instruction at birth. Something setup to inform the parents that their child may be predisposed towards violence however this predisposition does not dictate what will happen to their child. The parents just need to be educated on what roles they must play to develop their child away from an unhealthy lifestyle of violence.

I'd like to reiterate my question in that thread: scientists are always talking about "(de)activating" a particular gene. Is that something that can be done at any time during the life of the person/animal/plant, or is it only before "conception"? Is activating/deactivating genes the basis for gene therapy that I hear thrown around a lot?

Yes genetic manipulation is possible using engineered retrovirii. The virus can be designed to alter certain segments of DNA, like any other virus, and subsequently every new cell division will contain these new sequences.
Scientists are realizing more and more however that genes play multiple roles in the attributes they control. The "violent gene" could also determine hair color or how tall you grow. We have a very long way to go before we really understand how genes interact and influence us.

Originally posted by Amorymeltzer
PLEASE stop talking about politics. This is science and technology. Post in PTS for politics. Now...

Slow it down, cowboy. The OP made this statement:

Originally posted by slank
If you listen to the researcher talking on NPR's 'Science Friday'
when questioned about a 'gay gene' he rapidly distances himself from it.
It has become such a political hot potato that everyone runs from it.
Religious politics have begun to taint the willingness of science researchers to confront the religious bigotry for fear of losing research dollars.

Look at what Bush has done with stem cell research dollars.
Other nations are moving ahead with the science while this nation is crippling itself with religious ignorance.

If people realized a person was born with the sexual orientation, they might have to face up to the fact they are barbarians in their treatment of gay and bisexual people.

Religion promotes barbarism and not scientific enlightenment.

It is well within reason to respond to his acusations, despite what title or forum it may be listed under.

.
Backtoreality,
You seem to be unable to rise above the politics and address the scientific issues involved. Could it be that is one of your Christian Republican intellectual shortcomings?

Genes interact with the external environment.
Better fed children grow taller/bigger, yet some have predispositions to be shorter or taller than others. So obviously there is an interactive relationship between the two. I'm guessing that genetics gives a general range of heights under average circumstances, but even that can be evaded ie. bound feet of Japanese women to keep them small and American Indian tribes with boards on the foreheads of their infant papoose to keep the forehead flat.

Is it an established fact that there are some master control genes or is that merely a [logical?] speculation at this point?
.

Originally posted by backtoreality
Slow it down, cowboy. The OP made this statement:

It was directed at both of ya. And I'm repeating it.

You're right that genes are usually an influence, apc, but when you get such a drastic result as this it shows that yes, some things can be changed as simply as a genetic code switch. The nuture/nature debate is an ongoing thing, and will never end because both play such a large and unpredictable role in everyone's lives. The least we can do is try to get grasp on part of nature and try and nuture as best we can.

Originally posted by slank
Backtoreality,
You seem to be unable to rise above the politics and address the scientific issues involved. Could it be that is one of your Christian Republican intellectual shortcomings?

Nice cheap shot.

There were two statements made: one religious/political and one speculative science. I chose to address the former as I was sure no one else would defend those charges.

Originally posted by slank
I'm guessing that genetics gives a general range of heights under average circumstances, but even that can be evaded ie. bound feet of Japanese women to keep them small and American Indian tribes with boards on the foreheads of their infant papoose to keep the forehead flat.

You might want to check the facts on this one cowboy. Perhaps intellectual shortcomings aren't limited to one side of the camp.

Originally posted by slank
Is it an established fact that there are some master control genes or is that merely a [logical?] speculation at this point?

See above

So if the correlation between genes is apparent.

And we need Nutrition to reach the height our genes dictate.

what is required to produce tangible homosexuality....besides available men ? would an enviroment with 1 male with the homosexual preference in his genes sorounded by women...just be an uninterested male? no he'd still be "Gay" wouldn't he?

are there genes with no correlation between inputs(food, education, chemicals) and effect on the individual? if so, is this one?

Sorry i'm all over the shop this morning.

I have brothers, I also have a sister. They are straight and have long term, stable relationships with a single spouse. And they all have children.
For the most part, they seem happy with their lives and their children are healthy, intelligent and looking forward to their futures. And I love them all.

If this came down to nurture, why aren't all the offspring of my parents gay?

Did my mother treat me in a way that was different from my siblings??? NO!!!

Was I a momma's boy??? NO!!!

Was I exposed to homosexuality at an early age??? NO!!!

But, I am in a long term, stable relationship that has lasted longer than a lot of the members on this board have been alive. I have strong family values and support anyone that wants to take on the challenge of raising a family.
We have had many children in our home over the years and my partner has a wonderful daughter and 3 beautiful grandchildren, so I don't think I missed much.


If there is a "GAY GENE", I'm glad they didn't know about it decades ago. I wouldn't want to change anything about my life, and I'm happy that my parents didn't have that choice to make, they might have made a choice that resulted in a different me.

One of the great mysteries of life is your children, and you never know what you will get after that night of passion. You can try to instill your values on them, but in the end, they are as individual as you are and they are your children for the rest of your life.


I look at the two words that are most bandied about:

Nurture: The sum of environmental influences and conditions acting on an organism. I can't see this applying to me. That is only my opinion, but it's my life and I've dedicated at least a part of it to looking inward, so I think I know myself pretty well.

Nature: The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world Again, this can't be the deciding factor. I hope we are above the random movements of the Universe and that we exist outside the realms that we now percieve.

I think we need a third option:

[edit on 18-6-2005 by anxietydisorder]

Originally posted by Amorymeltzer
You're right that genes are usually an influence, apc, but when you get such a drastic result as this it shows that yes, some things can be changed as simply as a genetic code switch. The nuture/nature debate is an ongoing thing, and will never end because both play such a large and unpredictable role in everyone's lives. The least we can do is try to get grasp on part of nature and try and nuture as best we can.

Definitely.. but Im very curious to see what else has been changed by modification of this one gene. We can turn genes on and off all day long but the hard part is figuring out which combination of genes will alter one single characteristic. It's like a genetic Rubix Cube with twice the headache.
Btw, to all the Rubix Cube masters out there and the people who look up the "secret method"... bite me.

anxietydisorder
If this came down to nurture, why aren't all the offspring of my parents gay?

For the same reason you may have brown hair and a sibling may be blonde.

Nurture: The sum of environmental influences and conditions acting on an organism. I can't see this applying to me. That is only my opinion, but it's my life and I've dedicated at least a part of it to looking inward, so I think I know myself pretty well.

Environment influences how you know yourself. It influences how you think, feel, learn, grow.. It applies to everyone and everything.

Originally posted by apc

anxietydisorder
If this came down to nurture, why aren't all the offspring of my parents gay?

For the same reason you may have brown hair and a sibling may be blonde.

Nurture: The sum of environmental influences and conditions acting on an organism. I can't see this applying to me. That is only my opinion, but it's my life and I've dedicated at least a part of it to looking inward, so I think I know myself pretty well.

Environment influences how you know yourself. It influences how you think, feel, learn, grow.. It applies to everyone and everything.

Your first point in replying to me:
In what way would how I was raised effect the colour of my hair, or the hair colour of my siblings? That would seem to be a product of nature..........
(my mother did dye her hair, but she never did mine)

Your second point in replying to me:
Are we a product of our environment? YES!!! In the physical sense. But we also effect our environment.

I hope that at this stage of my life, that I have risen above any influences dumped on me by my upbringing, and that now, I'm a free being.
Free to experience my life in a way that makes me happy and fullfilled.

Originally posted by anxietydisorder
In what way would how I was raised effect the colour of my hair, or the hair colour of my siblings? That would seem to be a product of nature..........
(my mother did dye her hair, but she never did mine)

Actually it is a funny thing but environmental conditions can affect hair color. Although my point in that statement is the genetic role being played. You ask why your siblings are not gay, and it is possible it is simply because the gene is not dominant in them. Hair color, eye color, whos eyes you get.. remember 7th grade science class with the graphs showing the probabilities of genetic traits being passed?

I hope that at this stage of my life, that I have risen above any influences dumped on me by my upbringing, and that now, I'm a free being.
Free to experience my life in a way that makes me happy and fullfilled.

No. Environmental influences have formed the neural connections themselves, balanced the chemical reactions, formed associations between memory and stimulus, given you your sense of humor, morals, ethics, etc etc etc. The LAST thing we would want would be to "rise above" what has made us who we are.