A UCLA study proving the environment plays a role in homosexuality was presented at an annual scientific conference last week, gaining publicity in an unlikely platform.
Not only had the study been misrepresented in a way that led many publications to announce that a "gay gene" had been found, it was done so all without the necessary authorization of the senior author and principal investigator of the research, Dr. Eric Vilain. What is more shocking is that the scientist who presented the research, Dr. Tuck Ngun, who is openly gay, was offended by his own research and decided to completely abandon the lab a week before the conference for fear of it shedding a negative light on homosexuality.
“I don’t believe in the censoring of knowledge, but given the potential for misuse of the information, it just didn’t sit well with me," Ngun had said.
The study abstract, titled PgmNr 95: A novel predictive model of sexual orientation using epigenetic markers, used a model of comparing the genomic methylation patterns in 37 identical male twins of varying sexual orientation, as well as a control group of identical male twins of the same sexual orientation, to discover that the homosexual developments were triggered by the environment after birth.
“Our results demonstrate that studies of the epigenome can yield new insights into the biological underpinnings of sexual orientation and provide strong support to the hypothesis that epigenetics is involved in sexual orientation,” the abstract reads. “To our knowledge, this is the first example of a biomarker-based predictive model for sexual orientation.”
“I don’t believe in the censoring of knowledge, but given the potential for misuse of the information, it just didn’t sit well with me."
Dr. Tuck Ngun
As Sarah Knapton had written for Telegraph,“The finding is highly controversial because it suggests that some men are not born gay, but are turned homosexual by their surroundings.”
Peter LeBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality said that the study is one of many projects being funded at UCLA with the purpose of finding a "gay gene."
"David Geffen, a homosexual activist, gave a donation – probably a very, very large one – to UCLA, and they end up studying the gay gene, looking for the gay gene," LeBarbera told OneNewsNow. "And now they say they've found something with 70-percent accuracy that could predict it."
But accuracy is not what the study was proving. In fact, the study was proving the opposite of what the public was led to believe: that there is no gay gene. Unfortunately, that reality was too harsh for the politically correct to accept, because that would mean that little boys who wear makeup are not genetically gay; they are still just little boys wearing makeup. It would diminish the need for a 'gay community' and threaten the validity of many males who claim that they are gay.
Immediately after the presentation at the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) 2015 Annual Meeting, the ASHG released a press statement titled Epigenetic Algorithm Accurately Predicts Male Sexual Orientation.
The press release went viral, and numerous news companies including NBC News, Daily Mail, and Gay Times hastily jumped on the opportunity to announce that a ‘gay gene’ had been found, relieved at the ability to establish once and for all, that homosexuality reflects a genetic destiny.
The problem is that the ASHG press statement was released without the knowledge of the principal investigator and senior author on the article. This was later confirmed by both the ASHG communications manager, Nalini Padmanabhan. Padmanabhan said that the PI should have been involved with the revising, reviewing, quoting, and media consultation for the press release, which Dr. Vilain had not been.
Padmanabhan said that the post-doctoral author on the study, Dr. Ngun, had declined these options. Dr. Vilain had no knowledge of this.
As a result, the press release ended up misrepresenting the study in a way that had led the public to jump to the false conclusion that an "accurate" gene test for homosexuality had been found. The abstract had not specified accuracy in results, as it was too early in the research for that and there was not enough control data to achieve such results.
After the public realized that their rash assumptions on the study had been false, they turned to censure of the study and its authors. Scientific blogger Ed Yong published a comprehensive criticism of the study in the Atlantic, maintaining afterwards that “the research was described badly in the press release and the ensuing coverage,” and that the research itself was “fundamentally flawed.”
Nature reported that a significant group of scientists who were outraged with the "lack of peer review" on the controversial study, are pressuring the UCLA authors to issue preprints outlining the context of their work.
Ngun issued a rebuttal to criticism over his work and said that he had already made it clear that “it is too early to determine the nature of the relationship of the genes to sexual orientation.” Ngun said that the ASHG has not asked for a preprint, and that “preprints are extremely rare in the life sciences. I have not been to a conference that has requested one.”
It is still unknown whether the authors plan to issue a preprint as of yet.
However, it is already evident that the media are willing to do whatever it takes to debunk this study or pretend that it proves what they want it to prove. Until that happens, science is irrelevant. The left will pursue its agenda which dictates that there is a genetic basis for homosexuality and that there is no need for therapy or treatment for the sexually ambiguous. They are willing to watch millions dive deep into a lie that threatens their sanity, their health, and their future; just so that they can avoid the truth.