April 1998

[Seems like the jury's still out on this one.]

Subject: Gay gene “Nonsense”

Reproductive biologist warns on ‘role’ of genes [from UniNEWS (U Melb.) 13 March 1998]

People make a great mistake in talking about genes ‘for’ aggression, or genes ‘for’ homosexuality, or even genes ‘for’ height, says eminent reproductive biologist, Professor Anne McLaren.

‘There is no such thing,” she says firmly. “There are genes that ‘influence’ personality, or people’s susceptibility to disease, or their height and appearance and so on but no genes ‘for’. Nurture always gets in there too.”

At Melbourne for three weeks as a Miegunyah Distinguished Fellow, Professor McLaren is visiting the University’s Department of Zoology to work with another distinguished reproductive biologist, Professor Marilyn Renfree.

Professor McLaren says that it’s a combination of genes, and pre-birth and postbirth experiences that make a person.

She gives an example. “Some people believe that there is a gene for height, but that does not explain why over three generations people in Japan have become taller. —Genes do have a big influence on height,” she says, “but so do better food and better nurturing.”

Professor McLaren warns that some of the misconceptions about the ‘role’ of genes are very dangerous. “The genetic ‘influence’ can be small or large, but it cannot be considered on its own; the pre and post birth ‘influences’ must be also be taken into account,” she explains.

“My guess is that there is no aspect of human personality or appearance that doesn’t have a genetic component – even something like getting measles which one knows is due to a virus, but some people have genes which might make them more likely to catch measles than others.”

Professor McLaren has been working in reproductive and developmental biology –always on mammals — for almost 50 years, the last five or so at Cambridge. Before that she was Director of the Medical Research Council Mammalian Development Unit at University College, London.

Her international research reputation has earned her countless accolades with honorary degrees and fellowships from leading universities and academic societies across Europe and the United States. A Fellow of the Royal Society in 1975 and the Society’s Royal Medallist in 1990, Anne McLaren was made a Dame of the British Empire in 1993.

The friend who sent this said: I met Professor McLaren at St Hilda’s College during her visit and she said that she had been especially annoyed by the claims being made in the popular press in Britain for ‘a gay gene’. “It is nonsense”, she said.

Shalom! Rowland Croucher ()

From: Jonathan Arthur <>

On Sat, 4 Apr 1998, David Beswick wrote:
> Reproductive biologist warns on ‘role’ of genes [from UniNEWS (U Melb.) 13
> March 1998]
> 
> People make a great mistake in talking about genes ‘for’ aggression, or
> genes ‘for’ homosexuality, or even genes ‘for’ height, says eminent
> reproductive biologist, Professor Anne McLaren.
> 
> ‘There is no such thing,” she says firmly. “There are genes that
> ‘influence’ personality, or people’s susceptibility to disease, or their
> height and appearance and so on but no genes ‘for’. Nurture always gets in
> there too.”
<snip>
> [I met Professor McLaren at St Hilda's College during her visit and she
> said that she had been especially annoyed by the claims being made in the
> popular press in Britain for 'a gay gene'.  "It is nonsense", she said.  DB]
David,
When you were talking to her about the ‘gay gene’ were you talking about a
specific gene that makes a person gay or a gene(s) that *predisposes* a
person to being gay?
Surely she is only saying the first approach approach is nonsense? In
the rest of the article she seems to very strongly support the concept
of “genes that ‘influence’… people’s susceptibility…”
It would be very strange if she believed (on the basis of the
statements made in the article) that there were genes influencing
a persons personality, height, appearance, susceptibility to disease etc
but not their sexual orientation.
Regards,
Jonathan
From: Preston Guise <>
Jonathan wrote:
>David,
>
>When you were talking to her about the ‘gay gene’ were you talking about a
>specific gene that makes a person gay or a gene(s) that *predisposes* a
>person to being gay?
>
>Surely she is only saying the first approach approach is nonsense? In
>the rest of the article she seems to very strongly support the concept
>of “genes that ‘influence’… people’s susceptibility…”
>
>It would be very strange if she believed (on the basis of the
>statements made in the article) that there were genes influencing
>a persons personality, height, appearance, susceptibility to disease etc
>but not their sexual orientation.
The way I read it (and I admit that I did not read it through with a fine
tooth comb … maybe I should go back), was that while she did not feel that
there might be a specific gene for an attribute, the combination of genes
and other influences do together determine that attribute.
Her comments about being annoyed about the “gay gene” talk might have been
from the pedantic nature that many of us take to our professions.  I object
to hearing of the “information super-highway” or hearing someone pointing
at a monitor and calling it “the computer”;  she might have been exasperated
over the lay-definition of one gene causing a particular feature.
If she thought that it was nonsense that genes in general cause homosexuality
or are in some way responsible for homosexuality, I’d like to see her research
before I listen to that component …  
Preston Guise
From: David Beswick <>
At 10:51 6/04/1998 +1000, Jonathon wrote:
>
>When you were talking to her about the ‘gay gene’ were you talking about a
>specific gene that makes a person gay or a gene(s) that *predisposes* a
>person to being gay?
>
>Surely she is only saying the first approach approach is nonsense? In
>the rest of the article she seems to very strongly support the concept
>of “genes that ‘influence’… people’s susceptibility…”
>
>It would be very strange if she believed (on the basis of the
>statements made in the article) that there were genes influencing
>a persons personality, height, appearance, susceptibility to disease etc
>but not their sexual orientation.
Yes, in general terms I think that is correct.  The evidence which I have
reviewed myself does indicate, at least for males, some compenent of
genetic influence.  As with so much else, that in itself does not settle
the moral question one way or the other.
What I think I would object too is a fixed notion of a given identity based
on that genetic factor alone, and I understood her to mean that too.  
In any case there are objections raised to such an ontological notion by
some advocates of the gay cause, such as Dennis Altman, and “queer theory”
would also point in a different direction.   It is only to a simple
deterministic notion that I think Anne McLaren’s words are addressed.
David Beswick  <>

Related Articles:

• The Parents Poem (Robert Bly)
• Gay man opposes gay marriage
• Being a Pastor Doesn’t Automatically Make You a Sex Therapist
• Is the Men’s Movement Dead?
• Making a Will

This work, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Australia License.