Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3



Media Misrepresent 'Gay Gene' Study Without

Contacting Lead Author
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 dont believe in the censoring of knowledge, but given the potential for misuse
of the information, it just didnt 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 dont believe in the censoring of
knowledge, but given the potential for
misuse of the information, it just didnt 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

"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.