The Battalion
Opinion
Thursday
November 16, 1995
75
Recent genetic findings could stir things up
ti
RBI
I
pei
histor
20
fii
r
19(
the It
196i
, am
'sk
ofl
I n his epistle to the He
brews, Saint Paul, de
scribed faith as “the
substance of things hoped
for, the evidence of things
not seen (11:1).”
This relays the funda
mental difference between
faith and logic, religion
and science.
Faith — according to Paul’s description — is
blind, but mankind uses science to explain phe
nomena that was once explained by faith.
Science allows us to see.
Homosexuality is one such phenomenon.
In a recent article published in the journal Na
ture Genetics, Dr. Dean Hamer of the National
Cancer Institute reported new evidence to bolster
his claim of the existence of a “gay gene.”
Hamer and his team found genetic material on
the gene segment Xq28 may influence the occur
rence of homosexuality in males.
This doesn’t appear to hold true for homosexu
ality in women.
Since males acquire their X chromosome from
their mothers, homosexuality may be inherited
through maternal lineage.
Coincidentally, there is a 98-percent chance
that homosexual relatives are related maternally,
according to Hamer’s 1993 study of this subject
published in Scientific American.
In his 1993 study, Hamer and his team re
cruited 40 nuclear families wherein two brothers
were gay.
The researchers sampled the DNA of the gay
brothers, mothers, and sisters (where applicable).
After necessary corrections, the team found that
preset genetic markers were randomly distributed
over the X chromosome, except at a region
identified as Xq28.
At this region of the X chromosome, 33 of
the 40 pairs of gay brothers showed the same
marker. The probability of this occurring by
chance was less than one in 200.
To compensate for the study’s small sam
ple size, the researchers used a control group
of 314 random pairs of brothers.
The markers in the Xq28 region for this
group were randomly distributed.
However, Hamer’s study was criticized because
of replication problems.
According to Curt Suplee of the Washington
Post, Dr. George Ebers of the University of West
ern Ontario used Hamer’s method to test 42 pairs
of gay brothers but
found no pattern in the
X chromosome’s DNA.
Ebers claimed “the
reason for that is not
obvious. These things
happen in the sciences
all the time. The way to
resolve them is to get
more data.”
Yet even Ebers re
mains “totally persuad
ed that homosexuality is
biologically determined.”
Hamer reconducted
his 1993 study with a
new group of families
with gay brothers, as
well as families with
gay sisters.
Hamer also included
heterosexual brothers
with a gay brother.
He and his group again found that between gay
brothers, the same DNA markers were present 67
percent of the time in the Xq28 region; their het
erosexual siblings had different markers.
Hamer’s is one of a myriad of studies current
ly bringing to light what I and many others know
to be true: People cannot do a great deal about
their sexual orientation.
' Since all psychological phenomena ultimately
have biological links, one must expect the light of
science to encroach on faith’s obscure domain.
However, faith will never disappear.
Humans must always have faith.
I believe, for example, that this study is nothing
short of a breakthrough.
The thought of finally acquiring equal rights and
not living in fear and shame sounds fantastic.
This study appears the perfect means to that end.
Or is it really the end?
When scientists ultimately find the biological
factors that cause homosexuality, in the short run
there will probably be drastic changes in the way
America treats its gay citizens.
However, in the long run, the outlook appears
pretty bleak.
Since we can find out the sex of a child or
whether or not it has certain types of diseases
before it is born, we will — in all likelihood —
be able to determine whether or not a child will
be homosexual.
If the attitudes of Americans don’t change to
ward gays when this time comes, an increased
amount of child abandonment, adoptions or abor
tions may result.
The key words here are “may result.” Women
can and should always have the right to an abor
tion if they feel it’s necessai’y.
It would be terrible, however, for a woman to
decide to have an abortion solely because her
child may be gay.
We must accept homosexuality not as a choice
that people consciously or subconsciously make,
but for what it really is: An orientation that won’t
disappear no matter how much we wish, damn or
pray it away.
After all, what we think “ought to be” is the do
main of faith.
That is what some of us hope for.
But the evidence presented in this study and
in studies to come will challenge, and hopefully
change, our beliefs.
H.h. Baxter is a junior geography
and political science major
quid
scon
rcept
O’Leary wastes dollars, energy
Department of Energy's dubious spending reflects poorly on Democrats
A h the sweet sounds
of bureaucracy. Say
them aloud ... the
Department of Commerce,
the Department of Educa
tion, the Department of
Defense, the Department
of Health and Human Ser
vices, the Department of
Housing and Urban Devel
opment, the Department of Labor and the
Department of State.
Note how each slides off the tongue like
a Shakespeare soliloquy. “Labor depart
ment, labor department, wherefore art
thou labor department?”
Among all the great and wonderful de
partments in our vast wet dream, the poor
little Department of Energy has an awful
self-esteem problem.
Energy can’t go screw up our relations
with foreign countries — that’s why we keep
the State Department around.
Energy can’t help poor people in bad
neighborhoods get poorer in worse neigh
borhoods — nope, Health and Human Ser
vices and Housing and Urban Development
get that job.
The energy department can’t even help
more American workers become unemployed
— you guessed it, that is the labor depart
ment’s role in life.
So what does the energy department do?
Easy it rates news reporters.
• I know, you thought I was going to say
something really obvious like, “encourage
American businesses to develop alternative
fuel sources.”
Or maybe, “oversee the allocation of ener
gy resources through this fair land.”
No, that would be too obvious for Presi
dent Clinton’s current Secretary of Energy
Hazel O’Leary.
Apparently, O’Leary decided to exercise
some individual initiative and hire a public
relations firm.
In and of itself, that is not a big deal.
Maybe the firm could help
the American proletariat realize
that it should turn out the
lights when it leaves a room.
The idea never crossed
O’Leary’s mind.
Nope, she just wanted to
know which reporters were nice
to her and which were not nice
to her.
So over the past year, O’Leary paid this
public relations firm $43,500 to make a list
of all reporters who covered the Department
of Energy and to rate those reporters.
Democracy in action.
O’Leary claimed she just wanted to see
how her message was getting out.
What message?
If she had a message, I could almost see
her point.
Unfortunately, the Department of Ener
gy, like the Departments of Education, La
bor, Housing and Urban Development and
Health and Human Services, has outlived
its purpose, whatever it originally was.
There is no message here.
Except maybe, “I’m neurotic and I
should be fired.”
O’Leary, however, will keep her job.
She shouldn’t.
As punishment, O’Leary will have to pay
back the money out of her office’s account.
OK, stay with me on this.
If the money originally came from the
Energy Department’s account and will now
be replaced by an account within the Ener
gy Department, aren’t the people still down
about $43,500?
And didn’t that money all come from the
same source?
To be realistic, this is not a lot of money
in the whole scheme of things.
But that’s not the point.
Back in the ’80s, the Democrats tried to
make a big deal out of scandals within the
-Reagan administration. In the ’84 and ’88
elections, Mondale and Dukakis both referred
to it as the “sleaze factor.”
From now bn, I am going to refer to all of
the scandals in the Clinton, administration
as the “cheese factor.”
The Democrats have spent the past 40
years claiming to be watching out for the
working man and the middle class.
Yep, just put the Democrats in charge and
you’ll see utopia in a matter of minutes.
This “working class” line is getting a little
cheesy. O’Leary is just another example of
talking the talk (“we’ll take care of your
money ...”), but not walking the walk (“ ... by
spending it.”).
The Democrats have spent the
past 40 years claiming to be
watching out for the working
man and middle class.
Commerce Secretary Ron Brown is under
investigation for accepting gifts from the evil
empire (big business).
Hillary Clinton has that magic touch that
turns $5,000 into $100,000 in one year.
Labor Department head Henry Cisneros
is being investigated for making payments to
a former mistress.
And then there is the Whitewater mess —
and it is a mess.
The solution to this nation’s problems
does not lie in more class envy or warfare.
It does not lie in more bureaucracy.
It lies with the people.
As long as government officials believe
themselves unaccountable to the people,
they will keep behaving this way.
Hazel O’Leary needs to be reminded of
what it is like to be one of the people..
As in “ ... of the people, by the people, for
the people.”
Now that has a nice ring to it.
David Taylor is a senior
management major
The Battalion
Editorials Board
Established in 1893
Editorials appearing in The Battalion reflect the views
of the editorials board. They do not necessarily reflect
the opinions of other Battalion staff members, the
Texas A&M student l )dy, regents, administration,
faculty or staff. Columns, guest columns, cartoons
and letters express the opinions of the authors.
Contact the opinion editor for information on
submitting guest columns.
Rob Clark
Editor in Chief
Sterling Hayman
Managing Editor
Kyle Littlefield
Opinion Editor
Elizabeth Preston
Assistant Opinion Editor
‘I’m just a bill’
The Student Senate's cultures bill is
a watered-down cop out.
Well, at least it did some
thing. But what it did wasn’t
much of anything.
Last night, the Student Sen
ate sent a strong message to
the administration and student
body — the Student Senate is
more worried about its own im
age than the bills it debates.
The Senate amended its
American and International
Cultures Proposal bill by saying
that the student body as a
whole does not want a cultures
requirement.
However, if the administra
tion does pass a cultures re
quirement, the Senate advo
cates a bill that would leave the
decision to install a cultures
course requirement up to the
individual colleges.
This is pointless. If no cul
tures requirement is approved
by the administration, individ
ual colleges will seek to pass
their own anyway.
The Student Senate passed
this bill because it was under
fire for tabling a related bill
earlier this semester. By pass
ing this watered-down excuse
for a bill, the Senate appears to
reduce the intentions of a cul
tures requirement to the lowest
common denominator.
It is a huge assumption to
claim the majority of the stu
dent body does not want any
cultures requirement. Without
any student referendum on a
possible requirement, such as
sumptions are dangerous.
Technically, the Student
Senate has no power. All it can
do is make recommendations.
By last night’s decision, stu
dents should count their bless
ings, because now they know
why.
The Student Senate may
think it has finally taken a
stand on the slippery issue of
multiculturalism in the cur
riculum, and it has — by es
sentially admitting its lack of
power and representation on
this campus.
Woman crew chief
deserves respect
In Friday’s (Nov. 10) Battal
ion, I was pictured in the Ag-
gielife section accompanying an
article discussing Women’s
Bonfire Committee.
As a Texas Aggie Crew
Chief, not a member of WBC, I
am insulted that the only con
tribution The Batt credited me
for was through WBC.
At least, that idea was insinu
ated in the article.
Women assist in all elements
of Bonfire and are not limited by
WBC activities.
As I gave my name, title,
and phone number to the pho
tographer, I see no reason for
this mistake.
I happen to be fourth female
Crew Chief.
My position is a difficult one.
I am still breaking ground in
the all-important areas of
recognition and respect.
I appreciate your assistance
in making that ground just a
little rougher.
Amy Magness
crew chief. Bonfire ’95
Off-Campus Hogs
Class of’97
The Battalion encourages letters to the
editor and will print as many as space al
lows. Letters must be 300 words or less
and include the author's name, class and
phone number.
We reserve the right to edit letters for
length, style and accuracy. Letters may be
submitted in person at 013 Reed McDon
ald. A valid student ID is required. Letters
may also be mailed to:
, The Battalion - Mail Call
013 Reed McDonald Fax:
Texas A&M University (409) 845-2647
College Station, TX E-mail:
77843-1111 Batt@tamvm1 .tamu.edu