Dean Hamer and Ted Koppel: How Not To Report On Sexual Orientation
[adapted from Chapter 8: "What Does 'Genetic' Mean?]

....The announcement of Hamer's genetic study caused an international media frenzy. Around the world, issues of newspapers on July 16, 1993 carried the news. Both Hamer and Science's publicity department had gone into high gear, responding to the questions of the Washington Post and the New York Times; the Post's front page headline read, "Study Links Genes to Homosexuality."

Television found Hamer immediately. He, in turn, began to find television, and the rest of it, quite trying. What increasingly struck Hamer was the media's misunderstanding of what, exactly, the word "genetics" meant, reporters' misconception of "a gene."

On NBC Nightly News Tom Brokaw opened with the Hamer story, going to NBC science correspondent Robert Bazell. Bazell reported: "This latest research... shows that homosexuality is a natural genetic variation, like left-handedness or blue eyes." Likewise, on ABC, George Strait reported, "Gay activists intend to use today's discovery to support their argument that homosexuality is not deviant behavior." It was a mess.

NBC's "natural" implied that a genetic origin made a trait acceptable, or (in ABC's variation on the theme) "not deviant." Having a gene, Hamer noted with irritation, doesn't mean anything about a trait's being "natural" as in "good," or even just "benign." By that logic, the discovery of a gene for colon cancer would render colon cancer a "good" just like like left-handedness or blue eyes. In fact cancer is, obviously, natural. But in that same sense so is having Hodgkins's disease and fingernails. The crucial distinction- one that neither network made- is that Hodgkins's is pathological, i.e., destructive to the organism or to others, and in no uncertain terms deviates from the healthy norm, while having fingernails is not and does not. Schizophrenia is almost certainly in part genetic, but this does not make shizophrenia's horrific and unusual behaviors not "deviate." Having a gene for a trait does not mean the trait is good. A trait can be "genetic," perfectly "natural," and absolutely lethal.

Genes may also play a role in alcoholism, violence, gambling, pedophilia, and other states of mind expressed behaviorally. However, misidentifying a color-coded warning sign because one has genes for color blindness does not in any way make that behavior "not deviant."

What determines whether a genetic trait- left-handedness, diabetes, blue eyes, cancer, hair color- is pathological or non-pathological has nothing to do with genes. In the case of cancer and diabetes, there are measurable physical deterioration and harm. In their absence, the judgments are purely social. (Take baldness.) Gay activists would be very unwise to try to argue that the simple fact that there is a gene for homosexuality means it isn't deviant (and in fact none do). A gay gene does not mean that homosexuality is not pathological and it does not mean that it is not deviant. This is not what "genetic" means.

But where Hamer truly eluded the media- and where they perplexed him in return- was on a point so diametrically opposed to basic biology (and so, frankly, stupid) that it was days before Hamer fathomed what he was being asked. The Today Show announced, "There is new evidence that homosexuality may be inherited in some cases and not a matter of choice," and on ABC World News Peter Jennings said: "There is a new medical study which may have a significant impact on the debate about the nature of homosexuality: is it choice or is it biology?" Tom Brokaw opened with: "There's new medical evidence that homosexuality is genetic, not acquired behavior." On Good Morning, America, he was asked, "So if you say that genes are part of the reason, you're really saying it's not a choice." Hamer paused, and then responded with an observation about phenotypic variation that bypassed the question. The media could not understand why Hamer would not address choice; Hamer could not understand why the hell they were asking him about it.

When Ted Koppel interviewed Hamer, the resulting tape of the "Nightline" broadcast illustrated perfectly the crossed signals of politics and science on the issue of genetics and homosexuality. Afterwards, sitting in the tiny office attached to his lab, Hamer could analyze it, understand it in retrospect, look back at it and (almost) laugh. At the time, he found it utterly baffling.

"Nightline" began at 11:30 as usual, announced by the voiceover, "There may be a genetic basis for alcoholism. That doesn't mean we tell everybody to go out and get drunk because you can't help it."

Koppel announces: "Tonight: the genetic link to male homosexuality." He then opens the broadcast with a completely incorrect view of what genes mean: "More authoritatively than ever before, a scientific study is suggesting that a man's homosexual tendencies may not be a matter of choice."

Nightline cuts to its science correspondent Dave Marash, who has prepared a report. Marash listens to sociologist Charles Moskos bizarrely suggest that homosexuals are "a third sex," and then goes to Robert Knight of the conservative Family Research Council. Knight calls homosexuality a "lifestyle."

If there is a gene, Marash concludes, conventional wisdom holds that gays will find more acceptance. But he notes that race and sex are involuntary and have never stopped people from hating on that basis.

Back in the studio, Koppel welcomes Hamer, who looks slightly nervous and out of his element, his slate blue eyes wary under the studio lights. After the introduction, Koppel turns and asks, "If the findings of the study, Dr Hamer, are confirmed, will it then be accurate to say that homosexuality is not optional behavior?" It is the very first question, and it makes no sense. Hamer freezes.

He tries to figure out what he is being asked. "Well," he begins, "that portion of homosexuality or heterosexuality that is genetically influenced is, of course, not optional because people don't have an option over what genes they're going to inherit."

Koppel also hesitates. He tries again: "In a sense that's begging the question. Or maybe I don't understand the refinement that you have just made."

Hamer is confused by Koppel's confusion. Hamer has been quite clear that the genetic region that he has isolated is not the sole factor involved in the creation of the trait sexual orientation since in genetics, there are frequently non-genetic biological factors contributing to the trait.

Gamely, he attempts another answer. "What we've found is that one specific region of the X chromosomes is linked to homosexuality, at least in some men. And what that demonstrates is that part of being gay, or part of being straight, is determined in the genes. The reason I say that it doesn't mean it's not an option," explains Hamer, attempting to dovetail with Koppel's phrasing, "is that homosexuality is [probably] not simply determined by a single gene, as your eye color is determined by a single gene."

But Koppel is interested not in genetics but in the political debate over whether homosexuality is chosen; Hamer thinks this is about genetics. "And-,"Koppel tries, "how important-" Surely Hamer must realize that politics are central here. "I'm- just trying to get you to put it in as commonplace language as you can so that we all understand it."

"Sure," says Hamer, clearing his throat. He talks about the Bailey & Pillard study, he cites precise estimates of the percentage of which genes have "a role in whether a person is gay or heterosexual." He talks about his study, gives a genetic estimate, and confirms- yet again- that the evidence says there is a substantial component of homosexuality which is inherited.

After a commercial break, Koppel introduces the Reverend Peter Gomes, professor of Christian morals at Harvard University, and Art Caplan, the Director of the Center for Med Ethics at the University of Minnesota. The mood seems slightly altered, perhaps a shade more tense. There have clearly been some hurried negotiations during the break because Koppel then adds, "And joining us again- and I should point out that Dr. Hamer wants only to refer and to comment on the scientific aspects of the story- is Dean Hamer."

Koppel tries Gomes for an answer to the political question. "Professor Gomes, my sense is that those who want to be accepting of homosexuality are going to be able to use this information to help their case and, as Professor Caplan was just suggesting, those who do not want to use it will be just as able to use it for theirs. Your thoughts?"

This time Gomes, unlike Hamer, identifies the question as political, not scientific, and answers concisely in political terms, stating in his distinguished, Harvard tones his belief that yes, in the end, the research will be more helpful politically than harmful. "I think part of the whole conversation about homosexuality has been to confuse it with some deliberate choice of 'lifestyle,' confuse it with a 'lifestyle,' and suggest that it is somehow an option," he says. "In the sense that homosexuality is now to be seen as part of the equipment with which some people are born into the world, in some respects I think normalizes the debate, and I think that's helpful."

Having finally received an answer to his question about the political ramifications of Hamer's research (specifically, the choice question), Koppel visibly relaxes. He circles back one more time: "Let me come back to the science of this, Dr. Hamer. To what degree is that kind of reassurance for gays warranted? Is it appropriate, based on the findings that you have reached, that gays can say Look, it's not a matter of choice, it's predetermined?" asks Koppel. "In a sense," he adds quickly, just to make things clear. "Genetically," he adds.

And Hamer pauses, very briefly: he's finally gotten it. He takes a reluctant breath and, almost angrily leaving the questions of science for the alien realm of politics, gives the answer Koppel has been searching for. "I think," says Hamer, tightly and conservatively, "all scientists that have studied sexual orientation already agree that there's very little element of choice in being gay or heterosexual." And with that, he turns and heads back into science, pointing out tersely, and correctly: "The question is whether there's a defined genetic component to homosexuality and if we can ultimately understand how that works."

And now Koppel understands this biologist on the screen in front of him. "Why's that so important?" he asks encouragingly.

Hamer lays out his bottom line, the view of the geneticist: "I think it's important because without concrete evidence, it's really all just handwaving." He cites the old psychoanalytic theory of homosexuality's "cause" as the distant father, "an idea that was widely accepted but was never based on any fact. That's why I think it's really important for scientists like myself to try to get good, concrete data using standard experimental techniques."

Weeks later, Hamer will reflect that this is what is important to him: genetic knowledge, not for political reasons but for bringing the debate down into the realm of the concrete, for the science.

That this "choice" debate is no longer seriously discussed by any credible researchers or clinicians is, among researchers and clinicians, a given. No one with an accurate basic understanding of what genes mean would bring it up, sighs Hamer. Discovering the gene for sexual orientation is no more essential to knowing the nature of the trait than is the discovery of the gene for left-handedness essential to knowing whether or not people choose to be left-handed. But there is the public confusion about what the gene means, and the confused political, a-scientific debate about "choice" that flows from it. Hamer realizes, reluctantly, that in this political debate, the gene is a symbol. That is all. It is a symbol, a symbol of certainty, a symbol of a reality that is too politically distasteful, unpalatable, even terrifying. The gene is a helps those of us who need it the truth

And this is what "genetic" means politically.

The irony is that, in the end, even politically this much-discussed gene may be irrelevant: As Marash noted at the beginning of the show, those who hate will hate.

Nightline is almost over. They've survived. As a wrap up Koppel, now slyly playing devil's advocate, allows himself a final question by returning to the odd interpretation of Hamer's genetics made by sociologist Moskos. "Are we here," he asks, "and this may seem like a ludicrous question to each of you, but are we talking about a third gender, a third sex?"

Hamer looks as if he is going to raise an eyebrow. It is, indeed, a ludicrous question, but then for anyone familiar with biology Moskos' was a ludicrous point. And again, not what genes really mean at all. As always, Hamer chooses to be diplomatic and precise: "There are, of course, some people who have been called a 'third sex,' essentially hermaphrodites. The locus we've discovered is not related to that in any way, shape, or form, and as far as we can tell from our research results, the locus we've identified is just a normal variant similar to the sort of variants that cause differences in eye color or handedness or perhaps in other behavioral traits."

It is his last comment, typically scientific. Gomes' response, once again, is more to the point. "It hasn't created a new sex," Gomes snaps, "it has broadened our capacity to cope with the two sexes we have."