Civilized Discussion and Debate (spam not permitted)

[C Elegans]

I think the point being made CE, with regards to your last comment, is that Homosexuality is a feature of the Human race, and will always be there, unless the human race is wiped out.

I don't understand this statement either. Does it mean that if not 3-4% of the population have a homosexual behaviour, we will die out? Why?

Just my two penn'th, but surely if there was a "gay gene" which, IMO is highly doubtful; surely it would be exceeddingly difficult to be passed on through generations?

If there was a "gay gene", it could theoretically have been passed on because society has been so repressive towards homosexuality to the gay people would have had to reproduce with somebody of the opposite sex in order to have a place in society. However, this would mean that societies where homosexuality was accepted, homosexuality would have decreased since the homosexual people did not have to reproduce.

However, seeing that twin studies demonstrate at max 60% of the variance explained by genetic factors, we can be sure there is no such thing as a "gay gene" just as there is no "schizophrenia gene". There may be a network of different genes that contribute to the development of sexual orientation, but a genetic disposition that increase the likelihood for developing homosexual orientation should not be viewed as equal to having a "gay gene".

[C Elegans]

Sorry, I missed this previously. Hello and welcome to the forums!

I would go further and say that scientific studies of it are so primitive that we are much better using the evidence of our experience.

How is it better to use anecdotal evidence (ie personal experience) that is subject to selection bias, confirmation bias, individual subjective interpretation, etc that to use scientific studies as a means to gain understanding and knowledge about something we don't know?

Many GLB people I know are ambivalent about this because, if "gayness" is identified as a biologically determined phenomenon, isn't there a danger that it detracts from the "equality" argument?

In the one hand, a biological basis feeds the "disease" argument; on the other, what if we find that it IS a choice?

Lateral dominance, ie whether you are right- or left handed/footed/eyed is biologially determined (both genetically and prenatally), but it's not viewed as a disease. Neither is variation in hair, eye or skin colour, and this is genetically determined. On the other hand, tubercolosis or HIV are environmentally caused and they are viewed as diseases. Whether something should be viewed as a disease/disorder or not is not related to the causal background but to the functionality of the organism.

Let's assume it is later determined that homosexual orientation is a choice. It would be a pity since it would fuel religious groups to view homosexuality as sinful, but it should not change human rights or the legal system in terms of equality.

Wouldn't it be better to sort the politics out separately and argue strongly that this is a matter of equality and not cause?

Of course it would, I was just pointing out that research about sexual orientation can be useful also for social issues, since Fiona opposed this.

Regarding the research you cite, we should not be surprised at all that, for example, the patterns we see on some machine looking at gay men's brains show similarities to the patterns on straight womens' brains when they smell men. After all, they both fancy men!

The idea is that this study support the view that homosexual behaviour cannot be choosen, since the responses the researchers saw in this study, are of a type that cannot readily be learned. If you claim that homosexual orientation is a choice people make, the homosexual men should not have shown a response pattern similar to heterosexual women since response patterns of olfactory pathways at subcortical level to hormonal stimuli cannot be volontarily choosen.

This is news to me; any chance of a link/references?

I'm at home now so I don't have access to the database for scientific studies, but I'll try to remember to post some tomorrow if I have time. Poke at me if I forget it!

EDIT: I found some, but not full references, ie not the journal they were published in and the title, but you should be able to find them anyway: Pillard & Weinrich 1986, Pillard 1990, Bailey & Bell 1993, Bailey & Benishaw 1993, Pattatucci & Hamer 1995. All are published in the peer reviewed scientific press.

[Chanak]

[QUOTE=Dottie]@Chanak: Don't you think there is a difference between discrimination towards a sex or ethinc group and discrimination against a political or religious stance witch the person in question can drop whenever he wants and witch have serious ill effects on others?

I agree that one must be vigilant in regards to ones conduct, and be careful only to discriminate against behaviour that is infact proved harmful though.[/QUOTE]

I once asked myself this question: would Gandhi's non-violent opposition to the often-times brutal treatment of the Indian people at the turn of the 20th century have produced the fruit that it did in other times, places, and under different circumstances? I feel I would be dishonest if I answered an emphatic "yes" to that question. Sometimes, non-violence is not the answer. I wish it could always be, but there's pipe dreams, and then there's reality.

Ideally, in my mind one would not reciprocate the wrongs done to them upon others (ie, referring to the bank excluding the religious group). I am normally cautious in this regard, and tend towards being overly conscious of becoming that which I loathe. However, I have to agree that sometimes, serving back what was given to you is appropriate. The more I think about it, in this case, it might serve as a clear message. There's no questioning the self-righteous superiority evidenced by religious groups such as Christian Voice, who claim divine inspiration for their agendas, and divine endorsement for their efforts to ostracize any who do not fall in line with these beliefs (and who also strive to ensure that their agenda becomes law, if it isn't already). They wish for all to be judged by their own standards, while the people they condemn generally aren't in the business of judging anyone else except their own selves. I have yet to meet a homosexual person who condemned me for my heterosexuality...and gay activist groups strive for equal treatment under the law, not the exclusion of others under the same laws.

It would not be a return of the treatment they have received, then, to refuse to do business with those who seek to rule their very lives by force of law. I know that groups like Christian Voice (ie, religious activist groups) lobby governments in order to have their own views and beliefs instituted into law, and employ a variety of methods to achieve this. These views would enforce discrimination. If I understand your point correctly, it isn't discrimination to exclude those who are working towards excluding others. Particularly when we are talking about an organization like this bank, who is non-discriminatory in their policies and business practices, and feels that doing business with a discriminating group is a violation of their ethics. This is a point well-made, and one I agree with.

[Fiona]

[QUOTE=C Elegans]Hehe, when we are talking genetics, the early 1990's is almost prehistoric, but that's a side issue. Would you care to link to the scientifically respectable sites that talk about a "gay gene"? The reason I ask for this is that my Pubmed search on "homosexuality" and "sexual orientation" did not render one single result that mentioned a "gay gene" and it is also not consistent with current scientific thinking. The only mentioning of "gay genes" I have found was in Newsweek and similar popular media.
I work with behavioural genetics myself, and one of my close collaborators is an internationally renowed specialist in the area of sexual orientation and gender identity, and I have never heard anyone talk about a search for the "gay gene". Many people though are working with the area of researching what determines sexual behaviour, sexual orientation and sexual identity.[/quote]

If you are saying there is no such thing as scientific research aimed at finding the gay gene, I still cannot agree. For example:

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/004047.html

It is true that much of this is reported in the press and it will perhaps distort what is being done. Nevertheless it seems to me that research is being done on this topic. Maybe this isn't a scientifically respectable journal but on google search there are many such reports. Could it be that in the mainstream scientific press people are careful to describe what they are doing in different words ? just a thought




I]

[Chanak]

[QUOTE=C Elegans]...However, seeing that twin studies demonstrate at max 60% of the variance explained by genetic factors, we can be sure there is no such thing as a "gay gene" just as there is no "schizophrenia gene". There may be a network of different genes that contribute to the development of sexual orientation, but a genetic disposition that increase the likelihood for developing homosexual orientation should not be viewed as equal to having a "gay gene".[/QUOTE]

From my understanding - and perhaps I understand things I have read differently? - it is believed that no "one" gene is responsible for many tendencies, traits, disorders, etc, that seem to have a connection with being inherited. I've always had the impression that scientists feel these complex issues have rather complex answers, perhaps manifested in genetic tendencies that have many variables, as you state above.

[boo's daddy]

Sorry, I missed this previously. Hello and welcome to the forums!

No probs. Hello back! And thanks for taking the time to respond.

How is it better to use anecdotal evidence (ie personal experience) that is subject to selection bias, confirmation bias, individual subjective interpretation, etc that to use scientific studies as a means to gain understanding and knowledge about something we don't know?

Agree totally about anecdotal evidence; don't get me wrong, I am all in favour of (methodologically sound) scientific studies, and lots of 'em. I guess my reason for saying this is because people often use scientific evidence which addresses one question (e.g. are there similarities between gay men's and straight women's brains?) to answer another (is sexuality inherent or learned behaviour?) Crude examples I know. But anyway, I've known lotsa GLB folks over the years and learned heaps about sexuality (including my own) from it.

It's basic human communication to reflect on one's own existence in the light of others' experiences. Does that make sense?

Lateral dominance, ie whether you are right- or left handed/footed/eyed is biologially determined (both genetically and prenatally),

Didn't know that! * sound of tumbleweed getting jammed in hamster mind *

For sure, but cystic fibrosis is, as is heart disease, breast cancer, etc etc. Either way, homophobes will argue that it's an aberration of some sort. They can, and do, put forward a "functional" argument for this. That's why I'd like to see a separation of the cause argument from the equality argument.

Of course it would, I was just pointing out that research about sexual orientation can be useful also for social issues, since Fiona opposed this.

Grand. I certainly agree with you there. But there's an issue, of course, in the selective interpretation of research (we need more systematic reviews!).

Again, I think this is down to how science often addresses different questions to the ones we want answered. To be utterly naive about it, science tells us how, but we want to know why.

Good old fashioned empathy is a jolly effective shortcut through a lot of this kind of bias, in my experience. I've seen lots of (esp older generation) homophobes "converted" by a conversation with a gay bloke in a way that would be very hard to bring about with hard evidence.

EDIT: I found some, but not full references, ie not the journal they were published in and the title, but you should be able to find them anyway: Pillard & Weinrich 1986, Pillard 1990, Bailey & Bell 1993, Bailey & Benishaw 1993, Pattatucci & Hamer 1995. All are published in the peer reviewed scientific press.

Many thanks! Will peruse and line the cage with them if I don't agree with the findings!

[C Elegans]

If you are saying there is no such thing as scientific research aimed at finding the gay gene, I still cannot agree. For example:

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/004047.html

This link is to a popular science website called "Gene expression". They report a finding regarding the effect of gene splicing in mating behaviour in fruit flies, that was published in the excellent scientific journal Cell. The website then comments: None of the news is bold enough to suggest a human connection, i.e. a genetic basis for homosexuality, but it's hard to overlook the fact that fruit flies share 60% of their genes with humans.

So far the website. However, I have the original article in front of me right now, and the authors have not with one word mentioned that their fruitfly research is in any way related to issues about human sexuality. In fact, the aim of their study is to investigate the mechanisms of genetic principles for innate behaviours, more precisely whether innate instincts are specified by "switch" genes like body parts often are. The reason they chose to study sexual behaviour is because due to the fact that in Drosophilia, male and female individuals show different mating behaviour, so the likelihood to find behavioural "switch" genes would be largest in that field. The important finding of the study is that they tested the hypothesis that behavioural switch genes exist, and that one single gene can code for a complex behaviour in Drosophilia by acting during development to provide a potentional for a behaviour.

I quote from the article, please read it even if it is somewhat technical (I have removed most of the technical parts though):

fruitless Splicing Specifies Male Courtship Behavior in Drosophila
Ebru Demir and Barry J. D1ckson

Institute of Molecular Biotechnology of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, Dr. Bohr-Gasse 3–5, A-1030 Vienna, Austria

Introduction

Animals are born not only with their characteristic body plan and morphology, but also a set of innate behaviors, or instincts, that are manifested as stereotyped responses to environmental stimuli (Tinbergen, 1951). Enormous progress has been made over the past several decades in elucidating the developmental processes that direct the formation of the body plan and its parts. In contrast, our understanding of how innate behaviors are specified is still rudimentary at best. It is not even clear whether the general principles gleaned from the study of morphological development also apply to the development of behavior. For example, body parts are often specified by “switch” or “selector” genes, the action of which is both necessary and sufficient to trigger the development of a complete anatomical structure (Garcia-Bellido, 1975). Might instincts be specified in a similar way? Are there behavioral switch genes that create the potential for a complex innate behavior (Baker et al., 2001)? Or, at the other extreme, do instincts emerge diffusely from the combined actions of the vast number of genes that contribute to nervous system development and function, so that no single gene can be said to specify any particular behavior (Greenspan, 1995)?

If behavioral switch genes exist, then one place in which they are likely to be found is in the specification of sexual behaviors (Baker et al., 2001). Males and females generally have dramatically distinct and innate sexual behaviors. These behaviors are essential for their reproductive success, and so strong selective pressure is likely to have favored the evolution of genes that “hardwire” them into the brain. The initial steps of sexual differentiation have been well characterized for several model organisms, and genetic perturbations in these sex-determination hierarchies can alter all aspects of the sexual phenotype—innate behaviors as well as gross anatomy. Several genes near the top of these sex-determination hierarchies thus qualify as developmental switch genes, but they cannot be considered specifically as behavioral switch genes. A switch gene for a sexual behavior should act to specify either male or female behavior, irrespective of the overall sexual phenotype of the animal. A candidate for such a gene is the fruitless (fru) gene of Drosophila, which is intimately linked to male sexual orientation and behavior (Baker et al., 2001).

Male courtship in Drosophila is an elaborate ritual that involves multiple sensory inputs and complex motor outputs (Hall, 1994; see Movie S1 in the Supplemental Data available with this article online). It is largely a fixed-action pattern, in which the male orients toward and follows the female, taps her with his forelegs, sings a species-specific courtship song by extending and vibrating one wing, licks her genitalia, and finally curls his abdomen for copulation. If the female is sufficiently aroused and has not recently mated, she accepts his advances by slowing down and opening her vaginal plates to allow copulation. An obvious but nonetheless remarkable aspect of this behavior is that mature males court only females, never other males, whereas females do not court at all.

Certain loss-of-function alleles of the fru gene disrupt both male courtship behavior and sexual orientation: performance of the courtship ritual is below par, and it is directed indiscriminately at either sex (Anand et al., 2001, Ito et al., 1996, Lee et al., 2001, Ryner et al., 1996 and Villella et al., 1997). Strong fru alleles completely block courtship behavior, but weaker fru alleles variously disrupt individual steps, with each step affected in some allelic combination (Anand et al., 2001 and Lee et al., 2001). This suggests that fru is required for every step of the courtship ritual, not just for a single critical step. For all of these fru alleles, female morphology and behavior appear normal.

Of the many genes known to be involved in male courtship behavior (Billeter et al., 2002), fru is unique in that it is sex-specifically spliced (Ito et al., 1996 and Ryner et al., 1996). Alternative splicing at both the 5′ and 3′ ends of the fru locus generates a complex set of transcripts, all of which encode BTB domain-containing zinc finger proteins. Most of these transcripts are not sex specific, but those initiated from the most distal (P1) promoter are spliced differently in males and females. The alleles of fru that affect male courtship are all associated with chromosomal insertions, deletions, or rearrangements that specifically disrupt these sex-specific P1 transcripts (Anand et al., 2001 and Goodwin et al., 2000). This has led to the hypothesis that the male-specific splicing of the fru P1 transcripts specifies male courtship behavior and sexual orientation (Baker et al., 2001). This is the hypothesis we test here.

We used gene targeting by homologous recombination to generate alleles of fru that are constitutively spliced in either the male or female mode. Forcing female splicing in the male results in a loss of male courtship behavior and orientation, confirming that male-specific splicing of fru is indeed essential for male behavior. More dramatically, females in which fru is spliced in the male mode behave as if they were males: they court other females. Thus, male-specific splicing of fru is both necessary and sufficient to specify male courtship behavior and sexual orientation. A complex innate behavior is thus specified by the action of a single gene, demonstrating that behavioral switch genes do indeed exist and identifying fru as one such gene.

<snip>

Discussion

Development endows an animal with the morphology and instinctive behaviors characteristic for its species, preparing it for survival and reproduction in the environment into which it is likely to be born. An animal’s instinctive behaviors are just as stereotyped and just as characteristic for its species as its morphology, and so one might expect to find a similar logic underlying the genetic programs that specify morphology and behavior. Yet, whereas morphological development has now largely succumbed to the attack of classical forward genetics in a few model organisms, the same approach has made only modest inroads into the developmental origins of complex innate behaviors. Does this reflect a fundamental difference in the ways behavior and morphology are specified during development or just a lack of attention to the problem of behavioral development?

One of the lessons from the genetic analysis of morphological development is that anatomical features are often specified by switch genes, the action of which is both necessary and sufficient to direct the formation of a particular feature. A striking example of such a morphological switch gene is the eyeless gene of Drosophila, which is both necessary and sufficient for eye development (Halder et al., 1995). If analogous genetic principles guide the emergence of both morphology and behavior, then we should also expect that at least some innate behaviors are specified by switch genes. The action of such a behavioral switch gene would be both necessary and sufficient to hardwire the potential for the behavior into the nervous system. Until now, such behavioral switch genes have been elusive. Here, we have demonstrated that the fruitless (fru) gene of Drosophila is a switch gene for a complex innate behavior: the elaborate ritual of male courtship.

To be continued...

[C Elegans]

part II of drosophilia article

fru as a Switch Gene for Male Courtship Behavior

fru has long been known to be required for male courtship behavior (Gill, 1963). In this regard, however, fru is not particularly unusual. Many other genes have also been implicated in male courtship behavior, and in one way or another, a substantial fraction of the genome is likely to be required for a male to be capable of and inclined to court a female. fru only assumed its more prominent position when it was molecularly characterized, revealing that some of its transcripts are spliced differently in males and females (Ito et al., 1996 and Ryner et al., 1996). This led to the hypothesis that splicing of fru specifies male courtship behavior (Ito et al., 1996 and Ryner et al., 1996). Although widely discussed (e.g., Baker et al., 2001), this hypothesis has remained untested for almost a decade. We have now confirmed the key predictions of this hypothesis by showing that male splicing is indeed necessary for male courtship behavior (Figure 2) and is also sufficient to generate male behavior by an otherwise normal female (Figure 4).
<snip>
The distinct roles of fru and dsx in sexual development are clearly illustrated by the differences between animals that produce either only FruM or only DsxM. Animals that express DsxM but not FruM (either fruF males or dsxM females) resemble normal males but do not court (Figure 2A; Taylor et al., 1994). Conversely, animals that express FruM but not DsxM (either fruM females or dsx males) do court, even though they resemble normal females (Figure 4A; Villella and Hall, 1996). Thus, FruM is both necessary and sufficient for male courtship, whereas DsxM is neither necessary nor sufficient. The role of DsxM in courtship may simply be to provide the gross male anatomy needed for its optimal execution. This anatomical contribution of DsxM includes the formation of male reproductive organs and external genitalia (Burtis and Baker, 1989), the generation of the neurons that innervate these organs (Taylor and Truman, 1992), and the formation of male-specific taste sensilla on the forelegs that may house pheromone-detecting neurons (Bray and Amrein, 2003).

An open question is whether fru specifies male-like behavioral patterns more generally or is exclusively involved in male courtship behavior. We have focused our study on courtship behavior because this is the most dramatic, most robust, and best understood of the sexually dimorphic behaviors in Drosophila. But other behavioral patterns, such as aggression (Chen et al., 2002 and Nilsen et al., 2004), are also sexually dimorphic, and it will be interesting to determine to what extent these behaviors depend on fru.
How Does fru Specify Male Courtship Behavior?

A behavioral switch gene such as fru must act through the relevant neural circuits. In the accompanying paper (Stockinger et al., 2005 [this issue of Cell]), we begin the anatomical and functional characterization of the neurons in which FruM is expressed and present evidence that they form a neural circuit that is largely dedicated to male courtship behavior. As the same circuit seems to be present in the female, we reason that FruM most likely exerts its effect by modulating the function rather than the assembly of this circuit. Nevertheless, the critical period for FruM to do so is evidently during development, as adult males begin courting soon after eclosure, without any prior exposure to another fly. Moreover, experiments involving conditional expression of tra have suggested that male behavior is irreversibly programmed during the early- to midpupal stages (Arthur et al., 1998), coincident with the onset of FruM expression in increasing numbers of neurons in the male nervous system (Lee et al., 2000).
<snip>
The fru target genes themselves are unknown, as are, for the most part, their effects. The few cellular functions so far ascribed to fru are the regulation of the number or size of synaptic terminals in specific glomeruli of the antennal lobe (Stockinger et al., 2005) and at the MoL (Billeter and Goodwin, 2004), as well as the production of serotonin in certain male-specific neurons of the abdominal ganglion (Lee and Hall, 2001). A fascinating question for the future is whether profound differences in sexual behavior arise as the sum of many subtle differences such as these, or are instead primarily due to a still unknown action of FruM in a few key “decision” neurons.
Single Genes and Complex Behaviors

Complex behaviors require the actions of vast numbers of genes, and so it is quite easy to isolate mutations in single genes that disrupt a particular behavior. Almost all of these mutations are relatively uninformative as to the genetic basis of that behavior or indeed the relationship between genes and behavior more generally. More useful are genes for which different allelic states result in different manifestations of the behavior. Several fascinating examples of such genes have been found, and all have provided important insights into the behaviors they influence. This includes, for example, the npr-1 neuropeptide receptor gene in the control of social feeding in C. elegans (de Bono and Bargmann, 1998), the foraging cGMP-dependent protein kinase gene in Drosophila social feeding behavior (Osborne et al., 1997), the vasopressin 1a receptor gene in affiliative behavior in voles (Lim et al., 2004 and Young et al., 1999), and, more controversially, the serotonin transporter gene in human depression (Ogilvie et al., 1996). Importantly, fru differs from “behavior genes” such as these in one critical aspect: it does not influence a behavior as it happens, but rather acts during development to create the potential for a behavior (Baker et al., 2001).

Might there be other behavioral switch genes like fru, and if so, how will we find them? The lack of obvious candidates is no reason to doubt that other behavioral switch genes exist. Indeed, in many ways it is almost fortuitous that this function of fru has been discovered at all. Mutations that eliminate all fru function are lethal and hence uninformative as regards to fru’s role in male courtship. This role only came to light through the isolation of relatively rare alleles that disrupt specific transcripts (Gill, 1963). Even then, it was not until its molecular cloning that fru acquired any particular significance (Ito et al., 1996 and Ryner et al., 1996) and only now, through precise gene manipulations, that its role as a switch gene has been established. Classical forward genetics might not be the most effective way to search for behavioral switch genes, particularly if, like fru, the genes also have essential but unrelated functions during development.

Perhaps even more challenging will be recognizing a behavioral switch gene when we find one. Formally, this requires a sufficiency experiment, which involves asking if ectopic expression can specify a novel behavioral pattern in an otherwise normal animal. It is difficult to envision how such an experiment might be performed for anything other than a sexually dimorphic behavior. Hence, if we are to identify switch genes for behaviors that are not sex specific, then we must relax this strict criterion. What other features of fru could serve as a guide in assessing other candidate switch genes? Four aspects of fru stand out. First, as already noted, it acts during development to create the potential for the behavior, rather than directly influencing the behavior itself. Second, it appears to be involved in most or all aspects of the behavior, not just a single component. Third, loss-of-function mutations do not result in a general impairment of neural function, but a specific behavioral deficit. Fourth, it is required in a diverse set of neurons with little in common except their role in this behavior, to which they may also be dedicated. Candidate vertebrate genes that fulfill at least some of these criteria have been linked to behaviors at opposite extremes of complexity: the ETS transcription factor genes Er81 and Pea3 in the spinal stretch reflex (Lin et al., 1998) and, more speculatively, the forkhead-domain transcription factor gene FoxP2 in human language ability (Vargha-Khadem et al., 2005).

Finally, the concept that a switch gene can specify an entire innate behavior in no way denies the critical role of complex gene networks, just as the concept of a morphogenetic switch does not deny the existence of complex regulatory networks among the genes it regulates. These networks add both detail and robustness to the behavioral or morphological pattern initially laid down by the switch gene at the top of the hierarchy. The notion of a behavioral switch gene does, however, imply that at least some instinctive behaviors develop according to the familiar genetic logic of morphological development. Given the appropriate genetic tools, behavioral instincts should ultimately succumb to the same kind of molecular genetic analysis that has so successfully revealed the principles of morphological development.

I fail to see how this is connected to "searching for a gay gene".

[C Elegans]

It is true that much of this is reported in the press and it will perhaps distort what is being done. Nevertheless it seems to me that research is being done on this topic. Maybe this isn't a scientifically respectable journal but on google search there are many such reports. Could it be that in the mainstream scientific press people are careful to describe what they are doing in different words ? just a thought

You cannot use Google to find scientific reports, you have to use Pubmed:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi

A scientifically reliable journal, is an international journal that published original findings after a double-blind peer review process. A lists of all international peer-reviewed scientific journals plus their rating (there is a rating system for the quality of these 6000-7000 journals) can be found at ISI Web of Science, but unfortunately you need an instiutional subscription to have access to it.

As I posted above, I did not find any mentioning of a "gay gene" in my Pubmed searches on "homosexuality" and "sexual orientation". Maybe the impressions you have got by reading popular media has created a confusion about what research is going on and why?

What do you mean by mainstream scientific press? The mainstream scientific press is the high-impact journals like Nature, Science, The Lancet, JAMA etc - there are hundreds - where scientists communicate there findings. And there you tell exactly what you are doing and not, since your studies must be fully replicable.

Your understanding is correct. The "one" gene hypothesis for complex behaviours, traits and even most diseases was left long ago simply because the findings were not consistent with this idea. Some diseases are caused by alternations of one gene, but these are very rare compared to diseases where no single gene alternations have been found. Instead, it is typically a long range of different genes that form a network, and different such networks, that disposes or protects against a certain disease. Genes interact a lot with each other, and with environmental factors, so it's not even the same pattern of genes that may increase the risk for developing schizophrenia with 10%.

It should be noted that so far, no gene has been identified that explains more than 1% of the variance in human behaviour. (The expression "explaning the variance" means that not one gene has been found that affect this certain behaviour more than 1%.) On the contrary, a gene explaning 1% of the variance in a human behaviour, is viewed as extremely influencial since the usual range of explained variance is 0.1-0.2%!

But there's an issue, of course, in the selective interpretation of research (we need more systematic reviews!).

How do you mean selective interpretation? I have thought a lot about how to improve the peer review system but I can't really find a way to improve it without vastly prolonging the already slow review process. Do you have any suggestions? I think the double -blind system works well actually, except in very narrow areas.

Good old fashioned empathy is a jolly effective shortcut through a lot of this kind of bias, in my experience. I've seen lots of (esp older generation) homophobes "converted" by a conversation with a gay bloke in a way that would be very hard to bring about with hard evidence.

In a smaller scale, it may work with empathy, but on a global and political scale, I think science can spread new views more efficiently than any other method.

[Fiona]

@C Elegans

I am very grateful for the time you have put into this, and I have read the article you have posted as well as I am able (as you will have realised, I am not a scientist.)

I suppose a couple of things occur to me:

1. If your point is that the genetic situation is complex and that one gene will not account for homosexuality, I agree. I am probably guilty of using a shorthand I should not have used. However what I think I was trying to say was that research into a genetic basis for sexual behaviour does go on and on my reading of the article that is exactly what they are doing.

2. I would not expect controversial language in a scientific paper and I do not find it here. I still wonder why this research is undertaken at all. I see that they chose to investigate sexual behaviour because that was a particularly fruitful line of research given what they already knew and what they were able to do. I also see that they talk about similar lines of research into other complex behaviours either in prospect or already done (I think). Nevertheless I do not believe that science is free to pursue issues purely because of intellectual curiosity. Science is funded and some things are interesting to the fund-holders and some are not. This process arguably affects what is done. You said earlier that the number and cost of this kind of research is quite small in the scheme of things. I am in no position to argue but personally I think there are clear political and social agendas which have a bearing and which may well have real consequences far beyond the scientific community

3. I am not arguing that scientists are entirely responsible for the use which is made of their research but the very fact that the link I found was to a "popular" site is telling. I, and many other people, have to rely on the press to get any idea of what is going on. I know it is misleading and I know it can be deliberately distorted. So do scientists. It is not good enough to retreat from the consequences. Scientists are people first and they have the same responsibilities as the rest of us. That includes being alive to reasonably foreseeable consequences, including press hysteria.

4. For myself, particularly in the political climate, I think that the dangers may outweigh any benefit, though I am open to persuasion. I object to any use of public money to further this type of research; and I would like to know the motivations of the other big sources of money. I am aware of the argument that suggests that any interference with intellectual freedom is itself more worrying than anything else. But I think that is a straw man, given the costs of research.

[C Elegans]

However what I think I was trying to say was that research into a genetic basis for sexual behaviour does go on and on my reading of the article that is exactly what they are doing.

Genetic reseach is going on in every area of human behaviour. It is part of gaining knowledge about why we are as we are, and also part of gaining knowledge for treatment of the thousands of severely impairing diseases and disorders that affect human behaviour. However, research about sexual behaviour does not equal search for a "gay gene", just as research about psychiatric disorders does not equal a "crazy gene".

I would not expect controversial language in a scientific paper and I do not find it here. I still wonder why this research is undertaken at all. I see that they chose to investigate sexual behaviour because that was a particularly fruitful line of research given what they already knew and what they were able to do. I also see that they talk about similar lines of research into other complex behaviours either in prospect or already done (I think).

The reason sexual behaviour was used in the Cell paper about Drosophilia, was because in order to study putative behavioural switch genes, it is much easier to use a behaviour where there is a clear difference between two groups. That is the case for fruitflies. They have no personality, no individual cognitive style, no simple way to differentiate between individuals based on behaviours we can study. Drosophilia is a "model organism", choosen by scientists due to the ease of breeding them and taking care of them, and the short reproduction cycles. If ants had been a model organism and also had their genome mapped, the natural choice to study putative switch genes would have been by using two other groups, for example work-ants and fertile ants. What you need here is a clear dimorphism between two groups. When we are going to study behavioural switch genes in humans in the future, I am sure other dimorphic groups will be used, for instance patients - control subjects, or people who are high in a certain behaviour versus low in a certain behaviour.

The question why this research is undertaken, is the same question as asking why is any research on genetics, behaviour or proteomics undertaken at all. The answer is like above: a combination of mankinds need to understand ourselves and our world, and the desire to find treatment for disease and disorder. For instance, by understanding how switch genes work we will come closer to genotherapy for severe genetic diseases.

Science is funded and some things are interesting to the fund-holders and some are not. This process arguably affects what is done. You said earlier that the number and cost of this kind of research is quite small in the scheme of things.

Yes, and that is why military "research" gets a million times more money than any medical research in the world, and within the field of medicine, that is why cancer research gets much more funding than research about sexual behaviour. Cancer costs society a lot of money, whereas sexual disorders such as child molesting pedophilia, rape or obsessive-compulsive masturbation costs are not very expensive to society.

I am not arguing that scientists are entirely responsible for the use which is made of their research but the very fact that the link I found was to a "popular" site is telling. I, and many other people, have to rely on the press to get any idea of what is going on. I know it is misleading and I know it can be deliberately distorted. So do scientists. It is not good enough to retreat from the consequences.

I am sorry, but I don't think you realise how little influence and power scientist have on the media. The media image is, correctly or incorrectly, that people in general are not really interested in science and scientific findings, they are only interested in science if sex, violence or other spectacular areas are involved in a spectacular way. I work at a leading medical university, one of the largest in Europe. Every week our information department reports to media what findings have been made. The media choose themselves what they want to publish, and following the selection that appears in the newspapers and on TV, is very telling.

I have been interviewed for TV, radio and newspapers many times. I just love it when the reporters say "ok, can you explain, with simple words in about 30 seconds, how genes and brain chemistry can make people different from each other?" Or "Do you think we will be able to take a pill that makes us more intelligent in the future? You have 15 seconds...now!"

There is a lot of high quality popular science books and magazines around, written by scientists and not by journalists. However, judging from sales figures, people are far more interested in Harry Potter and the Da Vinci code that in science.

For myself, particularly in the political climate, I think that the dangers may outweigh any benefit, though I am open to persuasion. I object to any use of public money to further this type of research; and I would like to know the motivations of the other big sources of money.

I don't know where you live, but in most countries, all governmental funding is public and can be found provided you are prepared to put a little work in it. In order to publish in international peer reviewed scientific journals or at international peer-reviewed conferences, you are obliged to list all your affiliations and the exact funding for the project in question, with project numbers. When you apply for grants, you must not only write a detailed project plan including background, aims, methods, hypothesis and usefulness, you must also specify exactly what the money is going to be used for, and apart from annual progress reports, you must also in the end, specify how you used the money and what was produced. Thus, by looking at the funding information in each published article, you will be able to find exactly what the grant giver has given money to (ie, the motivation). Where I live, the governmental Scientific council has a searchable on-line database open for the public, and there you find a detailed description of all projects funded and how much money they have got. In many cases though you will not find it all open on the internet, but you will have to request this information from the grant giver.

When you say that you oppose public funding for "this type of reseach" do you referr to behavioural genetics, or only to research about sexual behaviour? Do you mean the results on Drosophilia are so politically hot so it's not worth the extremly important finding that behavioural switch genes exist and can be altered? Such a finding may be the basis for development of genotherapy for millions of people with currently untreatable diseases where genes play a role. You see, the problem with science is that you cannot predict what lines of reseach will yield the most useful results or not. Almost all major discoveries, in all scientific fields, have been made serendipitously, ie unexpected while not looking for this finding but for something else. If we could predict what we were going to find, it would not be science but a meaningless excersise in what is already known, don't you think?

If you worry about public spending on medical science, consider that the US defense budget is currently about $400 billion/year. NIH's (National Institute of health, the world's largest grants giver to biomedical science all over the world) has a budget of $28 billion (btw the same sum that Shrub's tax reductions has costed so far.)

The EU defense budget is about Euro 160 billion/year, of which the UK stands for about Euro 32 billion. The budget of the UK Medical research council is Euro 570 million.

The major areas that receive large grants are oncology (cancer), genetics, stem cell research, immunology (virus and bacteria transmitted diseases) and neuroscience (including age related, expensive diseases like Alzheimers).

Since I believe you live in the UK, you can look at funding for different areas here:
http://www.mrc.ac.uk/index/funding/fund ... 004_05.htm

NIH has a searchable database for all projects that has got grants since 1972:
http://crisp.cit.nih.gov/
and a search for "sexual orientation" resulted in 31 hits. A search for "cancer" resulted in 10 549 hits. Just to put things into the right proportions

If you think medical research is getting to much money, how would you suggest this money should be spent in a better way?

[boo's daddy]

[QUOTE=C Elegans]You cannot use Google to find scientific reports, you have to use Pubmed:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi [/QUOTE]
Google Scholar is an improvement. PubMed/Medline misses a lot of the (esp European) literature. You need to do EMBASE as well (though it costs an arm and a leg) plus whatever databases are specific to your area.
[QUOTE=C Elegans]
I think one of the problems we scientists have when communicating with other people is that 1) popular media often works against us because they distort and bias the findings in order to make them suitable for tabloids and 2) scientific findings are mostly made by conducting 100's of studies and then summarise the results. And no layman wants to read 300 papers about hormonal cycles in rats, the primate olfactory system receptor by receptor, etc. Very often a study is not so straightforward, but indirect since hypothesis (especially in human research) must be tested indirectly.



How do you mean selective interpretation? [/QUOTE]
When I said selective interpretation I was meaning "by non-scientists", which you've answered in 1) above.
[QUOTE=C Elegans]
I have thought a lot about how to improve the peer review system but I can't really find a way to improve it without vastly prolonging the already slow review process. Do you have any suggestions? I think the double -blind system works well actually, except in very narrow areas. [/QUOTE]
Editorial:
I think the problem is usability, or the lack of it.

Researchers publish research for other researchers, not for the public or even informed professionals such as clinicians.

There's good evidence that peer review, even when it's blinded, reinforces the biases of reviewers rather than ensuring quality. The answer, IMO, is to ditch journals and have fully open access publishing. Authors should provide structured abstracts with particular attention to defining the research question clearly. Reviewers should use validated methodological criteria which would be embedded into the online publishing system. This would focus on:

1) does the research REALLY address a clearly defined question?
2) was the study design appropriate for this type of question?
3) were the methods used rigorous enough to rule out bias?
4) what are the results and are they important?

It's interesting you posted a link to the MRC, as they have a consultation underway that is likely to push OA publishing forward, while the Wellcome Trust now require that all research they fund in the future must be made available via OA.

It's comin' yet for 'a that!

[C Elegans]

Google Scholar is an improvement. PubMed/Medline misses a lot of the (esp European) literature. You need to do EMBASE as well (though it costs an arm and a leg) plus whatever databases are specific to your area.

Google scholar is an improvement because it offers user friendliness. In my field (human brain research using neuroimaging and including behavioural genetics) however, a search in Google scholar will result in getting the same hits as in Pubmed and access only to abstracts except for some full articles that are free anyway. In other words, for the layman interested in life sciences, it's not much different from searching directly in Pubmed. For other sciences, it may be easier to use Google scholar than to dig up the specialist journals and read abstracts or free articles directly at their websites.

Medline and EMBASE have an overlap of about 4000 journals IIRC. In my field, I don't really have much use for EMBASE since all journals of importance for my field are in Medline anyway. This may differ between fields, of course. And also, if you do a meta-analysis you must include all possible databases. For the laymen wanting to know something about behavioural genetics (which was the topic I understood Fiona was interested in checking out) Pubmed has the vast advantage of being free.

Editorial:
I think the problem is usability, or the lack of it.

Researchers publish research for other researchers, not for the public or even informed professionals such as clinicians.

There's good evidence that peer review, even when it's blinded, reinforces the biases of reviewers rather than ensuring quality. The answer, IMO, is to ditch journals and have fully open access publishing.

I think we are dealing with two different problem areas here, with two different

1. Usability of science and communication of science
2. The review system and its' quality.

Usability of science contains two major aspects as I see it, and they are not easily merged into a lightweight saturday night TV-show. The first aspect of usefulness is the usefulness for the public. Everything in the life sciences ultimately strives to decrease disease, disorder and suffering. However, modern science is highly specialised and demands an education to even understand, so there is an issue of communicating science to the public. However, science is not only for the public, it's also for other scientists. Researchers communicate with each other in the form of peer reviewed papers and conferences. This is necessary for us in order to develop research strategies and methods further. Substantial amounts of time would be loss if we were all forced to communicate with each other in layman language. Also, a person withour specific education would not be neither interested nor useful for instance in decisions whether we should focus our resources to develop a radioligand for the 5-HT1D or the 5-HT2B and whether 11C or 18F gives it the best kinetic modelling properties. Thus, the aims, the reliability and validity, the results, conclusions and the heuristic value of a study must be translated to the public. And this is where I see no solution, not in OA or anything else: as long as we are dependent of the popular mass media in order to communicate with the public, we are also stuck in the same patterns that characterise all popular mass media: heavy bias for spectular tabloid-fitting topics, exaggregations, generalisation, misuse of statistics, quoting out of context or simply lying. I think you know how media can distort things. I am all for open access to all research publications, but I do not believe it will improve our communication with the public very much.

Open publication of research has only advantages, as I see it, but I am firmly against the idea of skipping peer review, as I know some people propose. I do not for a second anything else than severely hampered efficiency will be the result of the "put everything open on the internet and leave it there, and things will solve themselves" that I have seen some people propose.
PLoS on the other hand, which is open publication but otherwise the same form as a normal scientific journal, is a form I absolutely support.

Regarding the quality of open or blind peer review, the studies I have seen where blind or open review have been compared, have shown either higher quality for the blind, or no differences. Three examples:
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/318/7175/23
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/ab ... f_ipsecsha
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/ab ... f_ipsecsha

Whatever peer review system is the best should be used, but open review is associated with bias problems. For instance it has been shown that US reviewers review US papers significantly more favourable than papers from outside the US. However, this is far from my area of expertise, so if you have references with other results I'd gladly read them.

Authors should provide structured abstracts with particular attention to defining the research question clearly. Reviewers should use validated methodological criteria which would be embedded into the online publishing system. This would focus on:

1) does the research REALLY address a clearly defined question?
2) was the study design appropriate for this type of question?
3) were the methods used rigorous enough to rule out bias?
4) what are the results and are they important?

This is already the case for all journals relevant to my field, so the issue of open publication and open/blind review do not change anything here. Could you give some examples of where this is a problem?

There are of course higher and lower quality journals, with higher or lower reputation, influence and ISI impact factor and part of learning science is also learning about this. A study claiming extraordinary results, published in Local Journal of Extremly Narrow and Highly Specilised Title with impact factor 0.01 will recieve less attention and be viewed with more scepticism than a study published in Nature.

[boo's daddy]

[QUOTE=C Elegans]This is already the case for all journals relevant to my field, so the issue of open publication and open/blind review do not change anything here. Could you give some examples of where this is a problem? [/QUOTE]
I pretty much am in agreement with you; I'm not in favour of skipping reviewing, just that it needs to be done better. The problem I think is that it's haphazard and reviewers don't necessarily pick up the right things when they review research.

The other side to it is that of publication bias: "uninteresting" research is far less likely to be published.

I have a bunch of references in my refman database at work which I'll fish out when I get a chance. Offhand, the only one I can recall is this one from Bandolier:
http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/band88/b88-4.html

[C Elegans]

The other side to it is that of publication bias: "uninteresting" research is far less likely to be published.

True, and this is part of the conservatism in the system: novel findings, however high quality they have, are more difficult to publish. However, the ultimate test of the quality of research is not which journal it gets published in, but what it results in later. And in this long and tedious process, the seminal findings that were of high importance will be picked up and fairly assessed even if they were published in a crap journal originally.
The major problem as I see it, is loss of time.

I have a bunch of references in my refman database at work which I'll fish out when I get a chance. Offhand, the only one I can recall is this one from Bandolier:
http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/band88/b88-4.html

Interesting study, and horrible reproducability! Since I agree with Locke, 1985, Bailar, 1991 and Fletcher and Fletcher, 1993 that very high agreement between two reviewers should not be expected and is not even desired, I would not view it as negative if the correlations were not excellent. If everybody in a field had the same opinion, it would hamper development of new ideas since everybody had the same blind spots, so to speak. However, these figures are strikingly low. I'd like to read more though, since this study, although well performed, gave rise to some questions:

1. The two journals they investigated, sent an enormous amount of papers to only 2 reviewers each? That is really very strange. None of the high quality journals in neuroscience where our lab usually submit our papers use the same reviewers for so many papers, reviewers differ all the time. Also, my senior colleagues who do reviews (I have not published enough yet to recieve such requests) recieve the requests from many different papers, ranging from Nature and Science to highly specialised method journals, clinical journals and a variety of specialist journals.

2. They report that journal A in the study accepted 45%, and journal B accepted 41%. These are strinkingly high % acceptance of submitted papers! The high quality journals usually accept only between 5%-20% of submitted papers.

The above simply makes me wonder if the journals investigated in this study were not of very high quality. Of course it is still a problem that the reproducibility was so low, but it is a larger problem if the journals are of high impact, simply because the influence will then be larger. Is there any evidence open review would improve reviewer reproducibility?

Another question is that if we presume the reproducibility was this low consistently for many or almost all journals, should it not be reflected in changes of impact factor? If randomness is high, then many objectivly good papers would be published in low impact journals and many objectively lacking studies would be published in high impact journals. With time, it would be discovered what studies had better or worse quality (replication, heuristic value, number of citations etc) and thus, all impact values would regress towards the mean? Is there any evidence this is actually happening?

[boo's daddy]

I think you're assuming that impact factors are an objective measure of the importance of research. I don't know that that's the case. (When I say that I really mean it literally: I don't know how they're calculated or what they mean.)

It may be for researchers, who want their work to be cited by other researchers. I work with clinicians, who are concerned with validity, importance and applicability.

It's interesting that you say reproducibility is not necessarily a desirable factor in peer review. I can see your point, but I think it underlines my argument: if these sorts of study tell us anything, it's that peer review is a rather mysterious process which is subject to the biases of individual reviewers.

So, peer review exerts some sort of control on what gets published, it's just that we don't know what sort.

Anecdotally, I was involved in some training of BMJ reviewers a few years ago. It was part of a study to test out whether training (face-to-face or CD-ROM) improved the quality of their reviews. When we asked them what criteria they used to recommend papers for publication, validity was number 8 on the list.

To my mind, there is far better evidence that publication quality is improved by better standards of presentation. A "before and after" study of BMJ, JAMA, NEJM and the Lancet found that the quality of their publications improved after they adopted the CONSORT guidelines ([url]http://www.consort-statement.org)[/url].

Some studies (e.g. Schulz 1995, Moher 1996) have found that imperfect standards of reporting are associated with biased findings (i.e. dodgy reports of RCTs are more likely to find favourable results, particularly in respect of how they describe treatment allocation). Others have found significant deviations from the research protocol in the published reports (i.e. "let's ignore that inconvenient outcome and just report the ones that make us look good")(Chan 2004).

This latter issue is particularly pertinent in the light of the Vioxx withdrawal, which may have been down to incomplete, if not downright selective reporting of outcomes. Estimates are that Vioxx caused about 150k deaths, heart attacks or strokes in the 5 years it was in use.

That's why I'd like to see a truly open access scientific publishing system in which:
- protocols are published separately from, prior to and as a precondition for publishing the results
- review utilises validated measures of research quality
- reviews are publicly available and accrue CPD and Research Quality points for the reviewers
- users of research are involved in the review process

I wouldn't like to lose the good things about peer review (whatever they are), I just think it doesn't work as it is in terms of quality assurance.

A hamster can dream, I suppose...

[C Elegans]

Grrr! Several days ago I wrote a long reply to this which disappered because my browser crashed (yes I know I should write in Word) and since then I have not had time to post anything serious. Now I am leaving for a 3 week holiday in 2.5 hours, but some short comments:

I think you're assuming that impact factors are an objective measure of the importance of research. I don't know that that's the case.

The impact factor (IF) is objective inasmuch as it is a ratio calculated between the number of published articles in a journal, and the number of citations in other journals per year. It should not serve as an exact assessment of the value of research, but it serves well as a global estimation. Now, what I meant was that if the quality of the articles published in Nature was random, Nature's IF would drop since the articles would not be cited as often, and "Local Journal of Very Narrow Field" would increase from 0.0002 since the articles in that low quality journal would be cited as often as those in Nature. Thus, I argue that IF is a quality measurement.

It may be for researchers, who want their work to be cited by other researchers. I work with clinicians, who are concerned with validity, importance and applicability.

What area are you in? Different areas have different problems, and even though validity is always important, importance is more than immediate applicability and usefulness in clinical setting. Many of the most clinically important medical discoveries were based on many years of basic resarch.

It's interesting that you say reproducibility is not necessarily a desirable factor in peer review. I can see your point, but I think it underlines my argument: if these sorts of study tell us anything, it's that peer review is a rather mysterious process which is subject to the biases of individual reviewers.

Personally I think we all have to accept that we cannot be experts in everything and not understand everything. Just as we, without knowing everything about their methods for observation and analysis, must trusts the scientists in other disciplines when they say they have spotted a new planet or detected a new particle, I think we must accept that development in methodology is often obscurce to us if we are non-experts. It does not need to be mysterious because we don't know everything. In method development and new front line discoveries, it would not be good if everybody had the same opinions. However, in straightforward treatment studies, there should be no doubt since they deal with simple hypothesis testing and do not utilise any new methods.

Anecdotally, I was involved in some training of BMJ reviewers a few years ago. It was part of a study to test out whether training (face-to-face or CD-ROM) improved the quality of their reviews. When we asked them what criteria they used to recommend papers for publication, validity was number 8 on the list.

That's horrible. It certainly means reviewers needs more training, and having set variables according to which reviewers should assess a study, is a good start.

I wouldn't like to lose the good things about peer review (whatever they are), I just think it doesn't work as it is in terms of quality assurance.

Much can certainly be done to improve the quality of peer review, but the question of structured review criteria and increased "accessability" in writing, is not the same question as that of open peer review. I am still not sure that it's the best, since comparative studies have had different results, and an open review system introduces new problems such as personal bias, authority bias etc.

[boo's daddy]

Thanks for your reply, and for the informed debate from which I've learned a lot.

Just quickly: I'm an information specialist, and I work in all clinical fields (!). I do training, consultancy and development to help clinicians and patients make better use of research evidence in their everyday decisions.

I agree about basic research, though I also believe that we can have a greater impact on health care by applying what we already know than from any new technology likely to appear in the next decade. Take hypertension (high blood pressure): fully two-thirds of hypertensive americans do not have their blood pressure adequately controlled, even though we know this will greatly improve their health.

If you're interested, our training of reviewers was part of an RCT to see if it was worth training them. Although the study found that our training improved the qualit of their reviews (PHEW!), they decided that the benefits weren't enough to justify the costs. (Schroter S, et al. Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2004;328: 673-5.)

Fortunately there were methodological problems a-plenty in this study so I don't have to give up and get a job elsewhere

Have a great holiday.

[Chanak]

Magrus raised some points in the Bombs in London thread that I feel are worthy of discussion here. Specifically: could tragedies such as the London bombings been permitted to take place unopposed by those in positions of power, and in possession of knowledge that indicated it was going to take place? Or perhaps even orchestrated by said persons? It raises some disturbing issues, as such a thing is inconceivable to most of us. Either scenario is equally disgusting - either it was known and permitted to happen, or a more direct role was taken by those in power.

I'm not suggesting either in the case of the London tragedy, since I simply don't know enough about it to make any sort of judgment that I feel comfortable living with. However, history tells a tale that lends some credence to the assertion that things like this can, and do, take place. In particular, I am referring to the event that catapulted the United States into a very active role in World War II - the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.

It's common knowledge that the US was very busy prior to officially declaring war on both Nippon (Japan) and Germany during this period. As a nation, the US was neutral, though only on the surface (economic and military intelligence gathering activity during this period suggests something other than neutrality). This is in line with the history of the US up until the advent of WWII - Americans as a people traditionally loathed becoming involved in the affairs of other nations. They were too busy carving a place in the vast frontier of America to worry about what other people in other nations were up to - as long as they weren't planning to attack them personally. One needs only to look at the turn of the 20th century to begin to see the subtle shift that occurred in American politics in this regard. Demogoguery, it seems, became an effective tool in changing the minds and opinions of the American public concerning world affairs.

I look to President Theodore Roosevelt and his "morally driven" policy of intervening in the affairs of the southern Americas (the Monroe Doctrine) as a key indicator of this change in America's activity in the world scene. The morals he claimed forced "thinking men" into actively opposing the activities of European colonial powers in Central and South America set a precendent that irrevocably changed US foreign affairs.

Pearl Harbor stands out in my mind since President F.D. Roosevelt (a cousin of Theodore) at that time lacked the impetus necessary to declare war upon Japan with the moral backing of the American public. The US had been closely monitoring the activity of the Japanese fleet in the Pacific...and in fact, prior to the Pearl Harbor attack, had successfully broken most Japanese cryptological systems. Thus the transmissions of the Japanese fleet were by and large an open book to US Naval intelligence, and it was no secret that the Japanese fleet was on its way to Pearl Harbor...with a force that could easily roll over the American forces already stationed there.

What was done in response to oppose the Japanese fleet? Nothing. Things remained as they were at Pearl Harbor, with no warnings, alerts, nor evacuations of civilian and military personnel. History tells that the fleets' every move was tracked by intelligence personnel, and duly communicated through the chain of command. While it is true that at the time, even if the American military attempted prepare for the inevitable assualt they would sustain heavy losses and invariably be forced to retreat, doing nothing in response at all would be far worse. And this is exactly what happened. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was therefore officially declared an act of aggression, a "surprise" attack that understandably enraged the American public, and bolstered by a tide of righteous anger Roosevelt declared war on the Japanese empire with resounding support.

It was precisely what was needed to be able to grant "emergency" powers to the federal government, permitting things such as involuntary conscription (whereas before the American military was traditionally an all-volunteer force), government-imposed rations on the populace, the seizing and federalizing of property, military forces, and resources that were once the inviolate property of the states and private business, and the institution of numerous other "temporary wartime powers" to the US federal government that to this day remain intact and available for their use as they see fit to exercise.

I have used the example of the United States during WWII to illustrate how history backs up some of Magrus' points in the London bombing thread. Certainly, the US is not alone in the perpetration of such event manipulation, though due to the military might and economic prominence of the US on the world scene, it attracts the most attention in recent history. With such historical precedent, is not surprising to suspect some sort of duplicity on the part of governments in large-scale tragedies? Particularly, when the consequences of such tragedies lead to an expansion of a government's power over their populace and industries?

[Magrus]

I'm glad someone is at least mulling over the idea and not rejecting it because they don't like the thought of it. I find it simply foolishness to discount a possibility simply because you don't like the possibility. Especially when we get into such seriousness as those in power of millions of people. You can be sure they think of how to manipulate each and everyone they govern in some form, whether for their personal gain, or the good of those they govern.

Denying the possibility of them doing things, even horrible things for some form of personal gain is exactly what one in power doing just that would want no? The most successful criminal's in history didn't parade about with a sign on their chest that said "Rapist" or "Serial Killer" or some such. They knew how to make people believe they were something other than what they truly were and got away with what they were doing. Who's to say such people wouldn't have ambition and seek out position's of power? History is full of unscrupulous and malicious, or misguided leader's. Hoping this isn't the case for your leader doesn't make it impossible that it may be the case. It makes the job easier for those who are in power and doing things that are "evil" and harmful for their own gain to deny the possibility of such activities, plain and simple.

I don't intend to point finger's or throw out specific's and say "So and so is evil and is doing such and such a thing." I don't know and don't feel like bothering to research it frankly. All in all, I had the idea and simply put it out as a thought. I wouldn't put it past Bush, and as Chanak pointed out, it's happened before in American history. Given the chances this bombing is attached to the whole American-British cooperation thing going on, I can't put it out of my mind as a possibility though. All of this "War on Terror" and "being alert" should prevent such things from happening, no? Why then was this a surprise?

Granted, mistakes will be made, things will slip by, etc. Yet, it seems conveniant to me. Across the globe, people have denounced American actions with this whole "War on Terror" nonsense, and anyone supporting and aiding them as well. Why would a nation on the recieving end of such treatment do anything to justify this nonsense. The longer it goes on without such activities, the more horrible it seems to the world at large. Another bombing would shift the view of many people to saying "Well, maybe there is a need for this war" instead of protesting it.