There’s a gay fly in my soup! - Scientific knowledge’s role in democracy
Giovanna Di Sauro
A few months ago, Canada and Spain approved legislation recognising same-sex marriage. The opposition defended marriage as traditionally defined as a union between a man and a woman. In their opinion, homosexuality is something we should maybe tolerate, but never really incorporate into society, as it is not truly “natural” or even “acquired” and “contagious” — which is a common belief in some cultures.
How would the discussion change if an accurate answer to the question of “inborn/natural versus acquired/cultural homosexuality” existed? When there is not enough factual knowledge, issues like same-sex marriage are likely to be co-opted in extorting political consensus through heavy propaganda. This would not work if society was more conscious of the way research is changing many of our notions and presumptions. In fact, factual knowledge is increasingly becoming an essential prerequisite to be able to make an educated decision when new legislation needs to be established.
Can we really make a decision on an evidentiary basis whether homosexuality is inborn or cultural? In June 2005, the scientific journal Cell reported two interesting discoveries. A team of researchers of the Austrian Academy of Sciences reported that, while investigating the functions of a fruit fly gene called fruitless (fru), it was realised that this was the master genetic switch for sexual orientation in flies. This is an astonishing finding: flies and humans, even if they look so different, basically work in a similar way at the cellular level, and discoveries made in flies often turn out to be relevant for humans. Flies can get sick, demoralised, and can have cancer. And they can be gay too!
The fru gene exists in a male and female version: the mRNA coded by this gene — the “message” that will be then translated into a specific protein — has to be modified. When the modification occurring is male-like, the adult female fly will court females like a male. This is very easy to notice, because in flies, courtship behaviour is only displayed by males. Most importantly, the only thing that is really affected is behaviour/gender identity, and not biological gender. This discovery shows that genes necessary and sufficient to ultimately determine a complex behaviour exist — in this case, sexual orientation in flies.
This gives us quite a hint about the answer to our initial question, doesn’t it? Indeed, this novel knowledge is ultimately going to have a strong impact on our ideas and perception of homosexuality — and the sooner, the better. Legislation will have to take facts into account, and stop referring to prejudices and anachronistic traditions.
However, new knowledge has to find its way out of the academic elite. Public opinion is what drives legislation on ethical issues. The academic community — that is, us — should make an effort to allow knowledge to spread. Only then will decisions finally be based on reality rather than on propagandistic pressures, and real democratic decision-making will take place. A society where opinions are pushed through by heavily funded political propaganda and manipulation is truly not a functional democracy. What are the consequences of not taking lack of knowledge into account? Let me give you an example.
This year the Italian Parliament passed a law obstructing stem cell research that was supposed to “protect” women who are going through assisted fecundation. The law “protects” them so well that they are being obliged to get three embryos implanted without previous genetic screening. This results in many women having to go through painful, dangerous, and psychologically damaging multiple abortions. Often, one of the foetuses is too sick to develop, dies, and ends up infecting all the others. Genetic screening allows us to check for any mortal or invalidating genetic mutations, and assures that only the healthy embryos are implanted — avoiding abortions. Such screens have had a very positive impact in regions affected by high rates of particular diseases — thalassaemia in Sardinia, for example.
Signatures to have a referendum revoking the Italian law were collected, and this summer the people were called to cast their ballot. Most of the scientific community supported its abolition. On the other hand, the Vatican invested huge resources into recruiting politicians and media space to support the abstention’s movement. This finally led to the failure of the referendum, as the quorum was not reached. People did not go to cast their ballot, either because they were on holiday, or because they just confused the political campaign with the usual talk shows. There was not enough proper information being spread. The consequences? While Canada is investing into stem cell research, which will enhance our knowledge of cancer formation mechanisms, Italian scientists often have to move to other countries to (possibly) continue their research because of legal restrictions, or because of desperate lack of funding.
The main reason for this disaster is that public opinion is not strong enough to react to political propaganda and instrumental use of the media. In fact, people hardly had an opinion on this issue at all. I watched the Church interfering with Italian state issues and women being stripped of their rights. Switzerland reacted to the Italian referendum by offering Italian gynecologists the opportunity to work part-time. The scientific community evidently did not manage to answer questions as efficiently as the Catholic Church succeeded in monopolising attention by covering the churches with flyers and buying newspapers’ ad space.
What can we do to avoid ignorance and apathy in decision-making on important ethical and social issues in the future? As university students in a country that has a leadership position in research, peacekeeping, and in the individual rights’ struggle, we should make sure that as many people as possible become aware of the new knowledge being gained in these fast-paced times of discovery and technological advances. It is clear that we cannot pretend we live in an isolated world anymore, nor that science does not play an important role in our own ability to make responsible decisions in a democratic system — whether the decisions be about individual rights or research regulation.
New updated legislation is necessary, and so it is up to us to keep up with knowledge — and therefore individual responsibility — in modern times. When we choose, individual decisions affect us as a community, and we’d better base such decisions on the facts.
References and suggested reading:
“What Makes People Gay?”, Neil Swidey, August 14, 2005, Globe Magazine “For Fruit Flies, Gene Shift Tilts Sex Orientation”, Elisabeth Rosenthal, June 3, 2005, International Herald Tribune, New York Times
Rodent Social Behavior Encoded in Junk DNA, NIMH Press Office, June 9, 2005 “Neural Circuitry that Governs Drosophila Male Courtship Behavior,” Petra Stockinger, Duda Kvitsiani, Shay Rotkopf, László Tirián, Barry J. Dickson, June 3, 2005, Cell, Vol. 121, 795–807
“fruitless Splicing Specifies Male Courtship Behavior in Drosophila,” Ebru Demir, Barry J. Dickson, June 3, 2005, Cell, Vol. 121, 785–794
[ The opinions presented here are the author's, and do not necessarily reflect those of The Peak. This space is here for the exchange of ideas and opinions. Articles should be 1000-1200 words. For more information, call our Features Editor at 291-4630 or e-mail peak_features(at)mail(dot)peak(dot)sfu(dot)ca. Say anything, the last word is yours! ]