Reply to comment

I personally have a difficult time determining whether I support Dickinson or Descartes in the issue of brain vs. behavior. I think the conflict that I encounter in making a decision is a personal one between my deep desire to believe that there is such thing as a soul and free will, and my growing knowledge of the power and influence of the brain over our identity.

I read an article in the New York Times recently that leads me to believe that I am not the only person who is having such doubts, and that brain vs. behavior is becoming more and more of an issue in the scientific world. In Of Gay Sheep, Modern Science and Bad Publicity (by John Schwartz) I learned about how Dr. Roselli, a researcher at the Oregon Health and Science University, has searched for the past five years for physiological factors that might explain why about 8 percent of rams seek sex exclusively with other rams instead of ewes. His research has come under very harsh criticism from animal rights organizations such as PETA as well as gay advocates who claim, incorrectly, that Dr. Roselli is attempting to find a way to ‘cure’ homosexual rams with hormone treatments and that research like this could “pave the way for breeding out homosexuality in humans.” Obviously the research that Dr. Roselli is conducting is extremely controversial. Gay activists fear that this research could prove that the mechanisms underlying sexual orientation are rooted in our brain chemistry, and that they can therefore be manipulated. This, they claim, could lead the way to a sort of ‘sexual eugenics’, where parents can choose not to have children who will become gay. This thought process is very much connected to the belief that it is our brain that has complete control over our behavior.

Many arguments that I have heard support the idea that sexual orientation is based in our biology but emphasize the immutability of this biology (people are born with a certain sexual orientation and it cannot be changed) rather than its possibility to be discovered and altered. I am disturbed by the implications that the opponents of Dr. Roselli’s research are suggesting; by implying that ‘sexual eugenics’ is even possible, they are essentially portraying human sexuality as no more than a cerebral phenomenon rather than something complex that is much more than brain structure and hormones. I do not think that Dr. Roselli is attempting to find a way to alter the sexuality of sheep, or of humans. I simply think that he is doing his scientific duty to learn more about the brain and about why certain events occur. The question that is ultimately being raised is ‘how much control do we in fact have over our behavior?’ Our sexuality seems like something that is not just a result of our brain but of our environment. The fact that by removing cells we could eliminate what many people consider to be a significant part of their identity is very disturbing to me.