More then existance of Gay Genes I believe in mental sickness & emotional affliation with same sex. A moral issue & a sence of guilt with secracy open the doors for reserchers in some cases compromise with the society & law enforcement complecations create desasterious personalities in our society.
Very few born with unidentified sex & rest been produced by society, Surroundings & choices.

Syed Hasan Turab, Milwaukee, Wisconsin USA

"science" has become politically correct modernism and the open exchange of ideas has become a thing of the past. global warming anyone?

svede, grand rapids, michigan

its sad that a great mind should have reached this point and be subjected to public ridicule.
without the work of this man and his colleagues doctors would remain clueless about how to treat the many dozens. perhaps thousands of diseases that we are now tackling.
As to evolution, and Darwinism, well perhaps Darwin was wrong about some of the details but the basic principles were dead right
as to gay gene, it may be that some dim wit thinks he has identified a gene common to gay people and homophobic parents abort them but that's a long way from proving anything.

Personally I have no idea if they are right or wrong but proving that a behaviour is down to a gene is tricky at best and downright impossible at worst and since being gay involves some very complex behaviours I cant see that they can prove any such thing.

I would have thought a better line of debate would be about the accusations that much of the work regarding DNA was actually performed by a woman years before watson

Mike FW, Porthmadog, UK

If there is such a thing as a "gay foetus", people can and do abort them every day. The fact that you can even discuss a "gay foetus" is down to people like JW - I seem to remember the suggestion of gay genes being ridiculed not so long ago...

Tim, London,

Not much objectivity in this piece. I can see why you have moved away from science and towards journalism.

Daniel Grafton, Leigh-on-Sea, Essex

"Darwinism is Unscientific, Mythical, and inherently racist. It is being officially rejected by the modern science community and the mass public."

http://evolutionfacts.blogspot.com

Maurice, Walla Walla, Washington

Instead of tackling the argument with some facts or counter argument you play the man and not the ball, tsk tsk. You should go work for the BBC, religious freedom and all of that, as long as you don't think freely, the Tsar is in fact not wearing any clothes.

Ray, Johannesburg, South Africa

Unless we count up every human black/white of equal education and upbringing and then offer them IQ tests we cannot accurately determine if one side black or white shows an advantage in intelligence. Even then we could not accurately test this, as we can't know precisely what it is that affects intelligence in humans. Various things have been shown to have an influence, i.e. hereditary factors, education, nurture. And now diet!

Sciforums members may argue that historically, whites have achieved more in science and other academic fields. Two points to make re this.

1) White man writes history how they want to write it and include or exclude in their own favor. They also suppress whom they choose. They suppressed women long enough.
2) If whites were exposed to education earlier on in their history then it stands to reason through history we may see more white academic achievers then black.


Further more if whites are more intelligent than blacks then why is it we have some
Real dumb white people and black lawyers, Doctors, professors, etc? Quite simply the fact that black people can excel to these high positions proves that being black is in itself no hindrance to intelligence. And being white is absolutely no assurance that you'll have any!

When I was at school, the brainy kids tended to be any child of ethnic minority and that was not due to genetics but due to their parents wanting to encourage their children to have the best advantage they could at succeeding against tough odds in what may be a racist work environment.

There is though I believe a hereditary factor, but just as artistic ability can be passed through the generations, so too can intelligence or at least a certain way of looking at things. I have inherited intelligence but some are academic achievers without that hereditary advantage.

So do whites inherit more intelligence than blacks? There is NO evidence of this, none what so ever.

In direct response to any testing done by Watson in Africa, that brings me back to point 2 above:
'If whites were exposed to education earlier on in their history then it stands to reason through history we may see more white academic achievers then black. '

Watsons work does not prove that blacks are at a disadvantage when given the same opportunities as whites.

Creative Blogger, London, UK

Not a very pleasant article. Who is going to wipe the venom off the press?

Mike Poulsen, Reading, Berkshire