"gay" sheep

Finally someone writes an article correcting some of the absurd reporting that's been going on about "gay sheep" research at OHSU. In today's New York Times nonetheless (Chuck Roselli's made it big time, what's next, a CNN interview?):

Charles Roselli set out to discover what makes some sheep gay. Then the news media and the blogosphere got hold of the story.

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. The goal, he says, is to understand the fundamental mechanisms of sexual orientation in sheep. Other researchers might some day build on his findings to seek ways to determine which rams are likeliest to breed, he said.

But then there came the distortions by sloppy science writers, blogs and PETA:

The news media storm reached its zenith last month, when The Sunday Times in London published an article under the headline “Science Told: Hands Off Gay Sheep.” It asserted, incorrectly, that Dr. Roselli had worked successfully to “cure” homosexual rams with hormone treatments, and added that “critics fear” that the research “could pave the way for breeding out homosexuality in humans.” ...

The controversy spilled into the blog world, with attacks on Dr. Roselli, his university and Oregon State University, which is also involved in the research. PETA began an e-mail campaign that the universities say resulted in 20,000 protests, some with language like “you are a worthless animal killer and you should be shot,” “I hope you burn in hell” and “please, die.” ...

Dr. Roselli and Mr. Newman persuaded some prominent bloggers, including Andrew Sullivan, who writes an online column for Time, to correct postings that had uncritically quoted The Sunday Times’s article. They also found an ally in the blog world: a scientist who writes under the pseudonym...

Uhm. "Sir Oolus" perchance?

... emptypockets and has taken up Dr. Roselli’s cause. The blogger, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he said a public stand could hurt his career, said he had been cheered by the number of bloggers who dropped their opposition when presented with the facts.

Damned. No one listens to me!

Paul Root Wolpe, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania and a senior fellow at the university’s Center for Bioethics, said that although he supported Dr. Roselli’s research, “I’m not sure I would let him off the hook quite as easily as he wants to be let off the hook.”

By discussing the human implications of the research, even in a somewhat careful way, Dr. Roselli “opened the door” to the reaction, Dr. Wolpe said, and “he has to take responsibility for the public response.”

If the mechanisms underlying sexual orientation can be discovered and manipulated, Dr. Wolpe continued, then the argument that sexual orientation is based in biology and is immutable “evaporates.”

The prospect of parents’ eventually being able to choose not to have children who would become gay is a real concern for the future, Dr. Wolpe said. But he added, “This concern is best addressed by trying to change public perceptions of homosexuality rather than stop basic science on sexuality.”

It must be added that animal rights groups are unusually obsessed with OHSU (more so than other universities) and this time they found a way to hype their story. However, PR departments at research institutes across the country (including OHSU) don't appear to be very agile in this modern media world. So I wonder what lessons are to be learned from this. Firstly, maybe universities need to understand who they're dealing with better. Sure there's whackos at PETA, and with all the noise they make it's probably difficult to find the one argument that sticks and gets publicity. But in this day and age where information is transmitted within seconds across the internets, it seems someone should be in charge of checking google or technorati every so often to find out what folks are talking about before it gets "MSM" press coverage. Secondly, it'd be best to recognize the "hotbutton" issues--those that get picked up by blogs--soas to be prepared to respond in advance. There's not that many of them in science (global warming, stem cells, evolution); "homosexuality" is a subject that seemingly invites everyone to comment on. Thirdly, universities will probably need to play more hardball. A newspaper brings out a distorted article, we should demand op-ed space in response. And if that's not given, we should foster relations with reporters at other newpapers who would be willing to write better-written articles to debunk the misleading articles. Moreover, universities ought to send the "prominent" bloggers e-mails to tell them where they're wrong--something the article points out was done in this case--but don't wait more than a day to do so or else it'll be out of the news-cycle and may not be picked up.

Luckily, this story seems to have worked out alright in the end: attention was focussed on the research, discussion was had, most over-the-top claims have been debunked at a prominent source.



As an aside, check out this minor typo in the article:

In recent weeks, the tide has begun to turn, with Dr. Roselli and Jim Newman, an Oregon Health and [sic] Science [sic] publicist, saying they have been working to correct the record in print and online.

I'm guessing it should have either read "an OHSU" or "an Oregon Health & Science University" publicist. It's really a minor mistake, but the medical school's name was changed from "and" to "&" a number of years ago and everyone had to change letterheads accordingly. Back then, the subject of this controversy and I were joking around about it: we eventually came up with the idea of renaming the University "Oregon Science and Health Institute of Technology" (ponder the acronym). All in good humor, of course: most everyone who has had the oportunity to work at OHSU has cherished the experience, it's really a wonderful place.