Seems to me that it would have bred itself out by now.

thanks for the link…. seems they do!

They’re the people who throw dead dogs in dumpsters.

www.suffolknewsherald.com/articles/2007/01/28/news/news2.txt

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/breakfast/6278199.stm

Can’t view this (or won’t as only have dial up connection and really can’t be bothered to wait! The intro text suggests that yet again a journalist claims to “investigate” something by treating scientific enquiry as though it were a debate between for and against with no relation to evidence. Of course I am at risk of doing the very same thing having not viewed it !!

Ever noticed how they never try that on prople wearing other animal skin products… say for example leather clad hell’s angels?

I think they should all try doing this at least once…..

Could be time for another “post-MMR” style column comparing how widely the “Gay sheep” story appeared with how widely (if at all) the same outlets run the story of the Newman letter, or the story that it was all misleading nonsense and that they were conned by PETA.

Without harping on, this is what my mad-dream-fantasy-island-hallucination

“Joint scientific societies’ rapid response shite debunking unit” would do (if it existed)…..

-put out stuff like this, preferably distributed widely to media outlets, with the authority of the proper scientists, pointing out exactly why what newspapers W and Y printed was credulous misleading balderdash. Who knows, newspapers X and Z might quite enjoy printing a piece showing that their rivals W and Y printed complete rubbish, and eventually they all might start covering science stuff a bit more carefully.

SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT (BUT NOT THE SHEEP)
From Jim Newman from Oregon Health & Science University, the institution referenced in your article on Sunday.

Of course we realize that your article is based on the recent Sunday Times piece. However what you may not know is that the Times article was literally filled with errors – many of which were repeated in your commentary

I think it’s also helpful to note that the campaign against this research is based on untruths. It was started by PETA – the animal rights group – six months ago. (a fact that was fairly well hidden in the Times article) Here’s a link to one of PETA’s initial false postings for the research.

The reality is that the public is being “duped” by an animal rights group with an agenda. To meet their goal of criticizing the research, PETA crossed the line and started making baseless assertions here and here.

As for the science fiction about this research, some of which was unfortunately repeated in your article, here’s the reality.

- The universities have never tried to turn “gay” sheep straight. Years ago, researchers were interested in learning whether hormones played a role in determining partner preference. They boosted the hormone (testosterone) in pregnant sheep. However the research was inconclusive. If it provided conclusive results, the sheep would have preferred a same-sex partner – not an opposite sex partner. NOTE: Also – human sexuality is much more complex than that of rams – so we don’t refer to the animals as gay – that reference was created by the press.

- Based on this former point – the Times assertion, that we have had “success” is wrong. It was the opposite of what was studied and the study was to test of a hypothesis, not a seach for a “cure” (a truly offensive suggestion)

- Martina’s criticism is based on PETA’s false claims about this research. While we respect her right to comment, we are of course concerned that her opinions are based on many of the major factual errors about this research. These errors can be confirmed by reading the published studies in respected medical journals.

- It’s also important to note that this research is now almost 5 years old. We did international news stories on it then (in 2002). However, now that PETA has falsely called us “homophobes trying to cure homosexuality,” it is receiving attention as if the research were new. Another major deception by PETA.

While I don’t want to overwhelm you with info – I wanted to show you just how error-filled the Times piece was, Here’s a full list of their mistakes:

- The subtitle of the article says that the “experiments claim to cure homosexuality.” This is not true. A review of the published data proves this point

- The first line of the article claims that scientists are trying to change the sexuality of gay sheep. This is not true and in fact a major factual error. This is in reference to the test of a hypothesis, which is what all science does, where the scientists wanted to determine whether a change in biology during development of sheep influenced partner preference In fact, the scientists were trying to see if limited androgen resulted in same-partner preference (animals that preferred same-sex mates) the exact opposite of what the reporter states.

- Therefore the reporter’s following statement: “The technique being developed by American researchers adjusts the hormonal balance in the brains of homosexual rams so that they are more inclined to mate with ewes.” is false. The reporter misunderstood the research and reported the opposite of what was investigated (again, in testing a hypothesis)

- This statement “Experts say that, in theory, the “straightening” procedure on humans could be as simple as a hormone supplement for mothers-to-be, worn on the skin like an anti-smoking nicotine patch.” These experts were not us was left unattributed, so the reader has no idea who made this bleak suggestion. This statement shows a clear lack of understanding of the research and frankly a simplified, science fiction statement that has no basis in reality.

- The story states that the scientists have had “considerable success” in changing animal’s sexual preference. This is not true.

- The article claims that there is great public outcry. This is not true. Our university has never been contacted by any lesbian/gay group that is opposed to this research. In fact we have communicated with such groups that support the research because it validates their view that the research demonstrates a biological connection to homosexuality. As for Martina Navratilova’s letter (which we never received by the way), it came from PETA and the phone numbers listed in the letter to reach the tennis star are actually PETA phone numbers. Here’s a link to the OSU letter as PETA’s link to the OHSU letter does not work.

- The article says the research is being conducted to improve the productivity of herds. This is not true. It is a basic science study merely aimed at understanding the role of brain structure and chemicals involved in partner preference. It is funded by the National Institutes of Health and not being done for farming purposes.

- The article says electronic sensors are being implanted in animals’ brains by cutting the sheep brains open. This is not true. A review of all of the published research will show that this is not part of the research.

- The article says that the study is currently under peer-review. This is not true. This statement in the article suggests that there is an ongoing scientific question about the validity of this research – there is not. Prior to funding by the NIH, the research was peer reviewed and approved for funding. This is a very significant distinction.

- The article repeatedly suggests that the research is being done to cure homosexuality. This is not true. This has never been suggested and in fact the researchers have proactively explained for years that this is a basic science study. The only people suggesting a human use for this research is PETA and that claim came in the summer of 2006 (4 years after the research was announced).. Clearly PETA is attacking this research because it involves animals.

- The reader does not find out until page 2 of the article that PETA is the pressure group mentioned in the lead. It is curious for the reporter to bury such an important detail.

I hope that helps.

Jim Newman
Oregon Health & Science University
Portland, Oregon

www.aibai.cn/info/open.php?id=15991

babelfish translation below:

The English eminent science? ? Writer? Chart composition: “Public sheep reforming? The same sex? Direction “one? Existence losing in road? Harmony? ?

? White 网 (aibai.cn) Danfei
2007-01-18

January 13th, England > (The Guardian) resident in å…¶? Lap six publication come out “? Science “(Bad Science)? ? In? Chart Ryo? ? ? Writer Ben Goldacre medical raw composition? Sentence? ? ? Star period front (December 31st) resident in England > (Sunday Times) upper publication Noboru possession? “Reforming? The public sheep same sex? Direction? ? Existence losing in research “mark composition? Harmony? ? .

Ben Goldacre composition? ? The gist? “The same sex? Direction sheep? Our it comes? Discernment truth “(Gay sheep? Let’s get the facts straight). ? Volume composition å·²? ? ? Reason å…¶ 它 one 些 medium? ? . One direct right ever since Ben Goldacre medical raw our 从 2003 > “? Science “? ? The mark permanent writer, other things from here? Dew each? ? Science, medical science? Bureau 或 losing? Contents 而 distinction. Ben Goldacre? ? 于 Utsuzu university Magdalen institute medical science? ? 并 acquisition king institute philosophy? Loyal retainer degree, other things 曾? The next? ProfitableEnglish scientific writer? The meetingmost it is good scientific work? (20052003harmony) harmony”health? Observing/thinking “? ? 2006 “health? Observing/thinking? “.

> Resident in 2006 December 31st? Chart Ryo one volume? ? The gist? “Manned? Scientific house? : Stop? The same sex? Direction sheep unskillfulness “(Science told: Hands OFF gay sheep) mark signature writer? Isabel Oakeshott harmony Chris Gourlay composition? Sentence mediating/helping? Ryo beauty country one? Research person? Correct utilization sheep? Line reforming? The same sex? Direction? ? From here and the possession? ? ? Resident in each direction place pulling happening fighting? Harmony? ? . æ­¤ Humiya 曾? Reason one 些 medium? ? 或? Road.

Below right Ben Goldacre composition all sentence? Sentence (original? Connection ):

“Manned? Scientific house? : Stop? The same sex? Direction sheep unskillfulness “and sinking possession å…¶ 它? ? Ratio > On? One composition? ? æ›´ possession appearance Ryo. Composition? Nature right thought announcement? Person? One 个 name? The Charles Roselli professor righteousness resident in it goes out from here, the removal same sex? Direction? Name? ? Line arrival? Sheep cruel harmony yes 怕 mark? ? . Unhappy right? Volume “new? “Composition — writer 之 one mark Isabelle Oakeshott non-? Right one rank politics? ? Secondary? ? — merely right one volume scientific 遐 thought letter 而 å·², the 并 且 right coming out 于 suffering certain person? ? Body? ? Place? Use.

Tip 从 é‚£ volume composition? Person 之? ? Happening. “Sheep? ç›– bone suffering ardently? ? Child? Impression device suffering it is cheap releasing resident in large? On “, watching happening it comes? Person. 但 right? Complete — 而 且 right suitable? Odd — non- truth? . Resident in é‚£ 个? ? In, 并 sinking possession use God? Physiology? ? 甚 reaching sinking possession? ? ? It comes, our God? ? Placenta duty no trust breath: Other things? Merely right? ? The observing/thinking sheep how? ? Characteristic? Elephant coming judgement å…¶ characteristic? Direction. Cilla Black 并 sinking possession hitting? “Blind Date”? Eye (? White note: Finger England one 个? Famous Makoto 秀? ? ? Eye) going/participating? Person? Bone leaving installation? Child? Impression vessel arriving at other things? ? Inside (从 certain 个 angle? Human disappointment? ) Resident in our? Place? ? Mark? 个? ? Tiyuuya same? Sinking possession é‚£? 做. 从? Village? Beginning, 假 如? ? Phase trust? ? Circumstance right possession possibility, é‚£? Empress surface > é‚£ volume composition contents engaging in æ›´ right emergency? Falling perpendicularly Ryo.

“? Reforming? Load? Meng equilibrium “, é‚£ volume composition? ? Copying road, “principal right direction large? The inside injection load? Meng, other things? Resident in reforming? Public sheep characteristic? Direction direction å·²? ? Profitable Ryo ‘ discernment? The right same sex before the mark succeeding ‘ and one 些 之? Direction public sheep? Beginning? Profitable suffering mother sheep place absorption “. ? 个? Law, non-? Right perfection non- truth? Thing? On? Giving? ? Person? Mark genuine 做 method perfection reciprocal. é‚£ 个 research small? Immediate å·²? Completion 并? Chart only phase? ? ? Contents and right? ? Bundle “? Characteristic love “mark sheep reforming? Forming the “same sex love” (exhausting tube researcher 避exemption bundle? ? ? ? Business 于 chart predicate? Material line? ) 而 且 Resident in other things? Own? ? In? ? ? ? Mark? Fruit right losing? : ? ? Mark eye? Sinking possession? ? . 如 fruit? Non- phase trust our? Mark and leaving watching watching other things? Mark research? Announcement? (> (Endocrine), 2006 June; 29 (3): 501-11) .

Our? Yes from here? ? Copying good multi? : Same use 很 multi? ? 也 right? ? Mark. “? 个 government? Gold support? Intended first beginning intended right? Ryo stopping high 牲 domesticated fowl propagation quantity….. “? Ryo. “Michael Bailey and one rank God? Study professor….. “? Ryo. “? ? Research correct reason? 个 beauty national scientific family small? ? Line? ä¼°….. “? Ryo, “……? ? Discernment? Research pulling happening Ryo scientific boundary? ? Watching å¾… “? Ryo. Our giving é‚£ 个? ? Small? ? System? From here? One? Nucleus? : Immediate sinking possession duty no one 个 independent one? ä¼° existence and cause? ? Sinking possession duty what? Charge suffering stopping intersection? Chart and 也 sinking possession? ? Right å·²? Complete.

Non-? Most? ? Odd? Legal right, hint é‚£ 个? ? Mark possibility most? Direction right reforming? The human same sex? Direction. ? 个? Suffering in legal resident in é‚£ volume composition counter? Stopping and 甚 reaching coming out? Resident in composition? ? Mark part: “Scientific house? Righteousness resident in? Line reforming? The same sex sheep characteristic? Direction? ? One 些 judging? Person bearing heart? 个? ? ? Eye military officer? Out removal person? The same sex love? Direction 而? Flat road “.

? Village 做 个 incident time releasing: Super? Before 100, person? Engaging in? It is clear Ryo 拉? 克 (Lamarckian) mark? Profitable characteristic? ? Study? Mark? ? . 假 如? ? ? 那 correction? Mark? Thought thought? Breast? Large mark goods right no talent use empress generation breast 也 更 large? .

Scientific house? It is quick engaging in distinctness? Thing line? Researcher? ? 于 characteristic absorption living thing desk reason search right one? Basic scientific research. Our 从 PETA (main thing? Virtue å¾…? Material? Body) counter? ? Being similar research? ? ? Beginning? Line? Happening and possession? Scientific house engaging in? Line? ? ? Mark being clear it is clear, cause? é‚£ 些 Non- associate? Mark trust breath being similar 乎 right it comes out, our PETA. Our? Village? Mark ratio? Committee 婉, expert intellectual road? Thing? Benefit life? Folks capital 很 bearing heart — 但 > The 几 乎 possession in é‚£ volume composition? ? Trust breath harmony? ? Understanding capital right first-out? Resident in PETA? In charge. 很? Nature and å…¶ intended right? Ryo bundle same sex love person human group political life? Ability fighting taking arriving at? Thing? Benefit preservation? ? Body? ? In 之. ? 并 Non- right? Resident in ability possession thing, possession? Letter å·²? Suffering? Chart? (6 个 months ago), the empress it comes and suffering 收 the time (PETA Roselli composition).

During scientific researching existence arrival? Reason? ? 也 inclusion? Thing? Interest? ? ? 于 character and conduct? Mark research right no meeting pulling happening person? Mark? ? Yayuu 些 significant thought? ? . 但 Resident in? Village our non- meeting? And, non-? Cause? Our absent line, 也 cause? 那 right 跟 possession human possession? Mark? ? 而 Non-? ? Right scientific house 或 elephant our? ? Mark medical raw? ? . 那 right one 个 possession appearance? ? 但 right, Bunchu mark non- associate? Partial? Finger? Harmony? ? Trust breath, formation Ryo? In the midst of scientific research? Reason? ? ? Line reason? ? Mark largest obstacle. (? Sentence finishing)

I like that guy. But why bother reporting on obvious rubbish that hasn’t yet been published?

Re 24,27,30
I’ve also responded to the WiFi “have your say” – has it been published yet?

Er, passing straight through it…?