Confusion in reproduction and sexuality research

For years, research on human sexuality has maintained a spot amongst the most highly-debated topics of scientific inquiry. As an area of scholarly scientific research, sexuality and reproductive behavior continue to be heavily defined by sociocultural norms, with research in humans continuing to leave the public squeamish and research in animals endlessly drawing questions about the relevance and potential applications of the latest findings.

A leading researcher in sexual behavior and the role of hormones in reproduction, Charles Roselli has been studying male partner preference in male sheep, or rams [1]. Rams are polygamous breeders, typically seeking out and performing a series of “courtship behaviors” with ewes before mounting and mating with them. While most rams express sexual partner preference for ewes, rams will mount other male rams if ewes are not present [1]. More intriguingly, some of these rams exclusively mount other males, even in the presence of ewes [2]; these male-oriented rams may compose up to 10% of a population [3].

Roselli and others have made great strides in understanding the hormonal and neurobiological substrates supporting male partner preference in these male-oriented rams, revealing that male-oriented rams have substantially lower concentrations of hypothalamic estrogen receptors [4], reduced levels of the sole estrogen-synthesizing enzyme (aromatase) [5], and decreased volume of a sexually-dimorphic structure in the hypothalamus [5]. Researchers are now exploring exactly how these components interact with each other to support or suppress sexual partner preference for members of the same or opposite sex. The goal of such research is to better understand the fundamental contributions to our sexual and gendered identities, and to explore the complex biological substrates involved in reproduction and the transmission of genes into future generations.

Courtship behaviors in animals such as these condors can be studied to explore the mechanisms of sexuality. Courtesy of www.fws.gov

While these scholarly goals are crystal-clear to researchers, they are much less clear to the public. Over the past year, the media’s renewed focus on reproductive research has pushed a new wave of scientists into the public light. Animal models like those used by Roselli can be used to explore fundamental hormonal, neurobiological, and experiential components of sexuality, but the complexity of the research and often-misguided efforts to connect animal work to the human condition can lead to misinterpretations, sensationalism, and even alarmism from the media. Given the pre-existing and persistent sociocultural challenges to reproduction and sexuality research, researchers such as Roselli become particularly vulnerable to attack.
Indeed, an attack recently erupted in the media, based on a premature application of Roselli’s research. A few months ago, a London Times article announced that Roselli’s work “raises the prospect that pregnant women could one day be offered a treatment to reduce or eliminate the chance that their offspring will be homosexual,” continuing to say that “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” [6]. Throughout their publications, Roselli and other researchers have explicitly stated that the sexual partner preference of male-oriented rams cannot be equated with homosexual behavior in humans, as “human sexual orientation involves perceptions, fantasies, and experiences” [3] and is influenced heavily by psychological and sociocultural factors. But the media already set off a firestorm, using emotionally-laden language such as “altering” or “engineering” to explain sexuality and partner preference research [6,7] that encouraged further misinterpretation and obscured the nuanced nature of sexuality research.

This is not the first time in which preliminary scientific research on reproduction and sexuality has inspired misleading speculations or even alarmism in the media. Reported projections have ranged from proposed hormone therapies and prenatal diagnoses of homosexuality to surgical interventions that would “normalize” sexual behaviors or preferences deemed socioculturally deviant or abnormal [8]. Unfortunately, these projections can have devastating consequences for the continued productivity and funding of these important areas of research.
So how can scientists best communicate their research findings accurately and with respect to the social, legal, and ethical implications inherent in controversial fields of research, such as sexuality and reproduction?

Acknowledging that sexuality research is particularly vulnerable to unwarranted interpretations and premature speculations, Dr. Paul Wolpe warned that researchers must clearly delineate both the scope and the limitations of their research [8]. Further, researchers must continue to emphasize the complexity of reproductive and sexuality research, as Roselli and others have done, to realistically address the degree to which the research speaks to the human condition and thus avoid damaging speculation [8]. Perhaps most importantly, while scientists must take great care in how they communicate their research to wide audiences, they also must confirm that science writers and journalists accurately represent their work. Scientific literacy is dramatically low in this country, with the US ranking 18th out of 38 surveyed countries in students’ scientific achievement [9]. Science communicators should work closely with scientists to build public confidence in scientific methodology and to make informed, rational decisions regarding the implications of scientific research. By acting as science advocates, scientists and science communicators can promote thoughtful ethical, legal, and policy-related considerations amongst laypeople and media, with the intent of minimizing the sociocultural struggles inherent in hot-button research areas.

Reproductive behavior is necessary for the survival of virtually every mammalian species, and many of the components of what drives us to (or not to) reproduce are still a mystery. Maintaining the support of a scientifically-literate public and media is vital to continued scholarly research in sexuality, reproduction, and other promising areas of scientific exploration. After all, with this work, we come one step closer to understanding who we are and where we come from.

References
1. A. Perkins, C.E. Roselli. Horm Behav 52, 70 (2007)
2. L.S. Katz, E.O. Price, S.J. Wallach, J.J. Zenchak. J Anim Sci 66, 1166 (1988)
3. C.E. Roselli, K. Larkin, J.M. Schrunk, F. Stormshak. Physiol Behav 83, 233 (2004)
4. A. Perkins, J.A. Fitzgerald, G.E. Moss. Horm Behav 29, 31 (1995)
5. C.E. Roselli, K. Larkin, J.A. Resko, J.N. Stellflug, F Stormshak. Endocrinology 145, 478 (2004)
6. I. Oakeshott, C. Gourlay. “Science told: hands off gay sheep.” London Times (December 31, 2006)
7. W. Saletan. Brokeback mutton: Gay sheep and human destiny. Slate (February 2, 2007)
8. P.R. Wolpe. Nature Neurosci 7, 1031 (2004)
9. M.O. Martin, I.V.S. Mullis, E.J. Gonzalez, K.D. Gregory, T.A. Smith, S.J. et al. Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade (TIMSS 1999 International Science Report; http://isc.bc.edu/timss1999i/science_achievement_report.html).