The Complex Political Terrain of "Born this Way" in the Era of Big Data Genomics

Authors: Helen Zhao, Alex Borsa, and Maayan Sudai

In late August, 2019, Science published the largest study to date on the genetic basis of same-sex sexual behavior.[i] Since then, the study’s findings have been politically framed and interpreted in a variety of ways.

Some, including the study’s authors, have claimed[ii] that by debunking the longstanding myth of a singular ‘Gay Gene’ and by providing evidence of a complex genetic architecture underlying same-sex sexual behavior, the study achieves two liberatory aims. First, it vindicates the sexual diversity of queer people. It suggests that same-sex sexual behavior is not a singular phenomenon because there are many different ways of being “born that way.” Genetic information also cannot be used to accurately predict sexual behavior, despite recent attempts to do so.[iii] Second, by providing evidence of some genetic basis, the study naturalizes homosexuality, thereby normalizing it and strengthening the case for legal protections of the LBTQIA+ community, they hope.[iv]

While from one perspective Ganna et al. support queer communities by counteracting views of same-sex sexual behavior as an immoral lifestyle choice, far more evidence predicts that the study poses a greater threat than a boon to queer liberation. There are real, historically supported concerns that the study will be mobilized to oppress rather than benefit sexual minorities. A political framework that justifies legal protections and rights on the basis of human biology carries the grave risk of being extended to justify the oppression of gender minorities.

“There are real, historically supported concerns that the study will be mobilized to oppress rather than benefit sexual minorities.”

To begin, consider that behaviors with a biological basis are not always considered ‘normal’ or ‘acceptable’ by others.[v] As bioinformatics analyst Carino Gurjao has noted, research on the biology of sexual orientation has been used to ‘disorder’ and ‘pervert’ homosexuality before.[vi] The risks that it will once again be deployed this way are heightened by the fact that same-sex orientation remains criminalized in more than 70 countries, and in some instances is punishable by death, as Melinda C. Mills reports.[vii]

Moreover, Ganna et al. purport to genetically correlate same-sex sexual behavior to other often stigmatized behaviors and traits, like mental disorders, risk-taking, cannabis use, openness to experience, and loneliness. This further raises the specter that the study’s results might be invoked to perpetuate damaging stereotypes about the queer community, notwithstanding its tepid disclaimer that “the causal processes underlying these genetic correlations are unclear and could be generated by environmental factors relating to prejudice”.[viii]

Attempts to preempt harmful interpretations of the study go only so far. While the authors vociferously denounce any uses of their results to defend conversion therapy, they have failed to stop politically conservative forces from mobilizing their results to precisely these ends.[ix] Although they themselves condemn conversion therapy as both “abhorrent and scientifically invalid”,[x] a commentary published in The American Conservative argues that the study empirically supports conversion therapy: “if homosexuality is primarily a matter of nurture, not nature, why is it wrong to let gay people who want to seek therapy in hope of reducing or eliminating same-sex desire undergo that treatment?”[xi]

Moreover, mere weeks after the study’s publication, the direct-to-consumer genetic prediction platform GenePlaza began offering a service through an app called “How Gay Are You?” GenePlaza lets consumers send a biological sample for DNA sequencing, or upload their genetic information from another platform, and then select various analyses to be run. The “How Gay Are You?” app’s method was based on the genetic loci identified by Ganna et al., and directly cited the paper in its description. The app’s lead, Joel Bellenson, is based out of Uganda, where members of parliament also announced last month that they would begin working to revive a 2014 bill that would make gay sex punishable by death.[xii] While the concomitant nature of these developments is almost certainly a coincidence, and while the app has since been retracted from GenePlaza’s marketplace,[xiii] the perilous stakes of Ganna et al.’s research are made painfully clear.

Unfortunately, scientific results do not determine their own political interpretations, nor do the investigators. That someone could interpret Ganna et al. beneficently is no plausible argument for the actual beneficence of the research, nor the actual downstream effects of its experimental design, methods, analytics, and conclusions. To take into account the possible ways a scientific study may be mobilized, and which policies or political programs it may be used to defend, requires careful historical and sociological inquiry from the start.

It’s worth noting that members of the research team like Dr. Benjamin Neale have attempted to justify their initial decision to pursue their project by appeal to market logics. They have argued that it was only a matter of time before someone less careful would have conducted the same study less rigorously. After all, genetic information used by the study, such as the UK Biobank data, is readily accessible to researchers — free for the taking.[xiv] As investigators have argued: better to have the Broad Institute, a world-renowned genomics research center at MIT and Harvard, do it first.

This exemplifies a key insight of social studies of scientific knowledge: researchers commonly select and design their research based on extra-scientific considerations. The idea that scientific inquiry exists completely detached from the social world is a fantasy — in reality, human beings with human motivations are conducting research and making contingent decisions about what gets done and what doesn’t.

That a scientist can do something is not a sufficient argument for doing it, and has not been since the horrors of Nazi science galvanized the international scientific community to set ethical standards of research. Many in the LGBTQIA+ community did not endorse the study because of concerns about the negative consequences of such research.[xv] That the study proceeded anyway, then, raises troubling questions about the institutional nature of knowledge production: about who has the power and right to know, and who does not. The study’s use of human genetic data, even de-identified data, raises serious concerns about data privacy and the study’s research ethics, further undercutting its claim to beneficence.

“That a scientist can do something is not a sufficient argument for doing it...”

“Born this way” frameworks that couple access to civil and human rights with claims to ‘naturalness’ are, furthermore, far from innocent. By raising the political stakes of possessing biological markers, they turn the question of political standing into one of biological verification. This has the potential to be mobilized for both sexist, trans-exclusionary,[xvi] and racist aims. As indigenous scholar Kim TallBear describes, genetic testing is being used to ‘disappear’ indigenous identities by reconfiguring indigeneity as a perpetually vanishing genetic trait.[xvii] If one’s claim to human rights — one’s very claim to legal personhood —  is made into a question of whether one was born this way, those who ‘fail’ biological tests of membership, like hormone testing in sports,[xviii] are rendered illegible in the eyes of the political community.

Thus, while we applaud Ganna et al. for their consultations with LGBTQIA+ and other advocacy groups in the course of communicating their research, it cannot be convincingly argued that the study, in the end, does more good than harm for sexual and gender minorities. The publication opens the door to more genetic research on same-sex sexual behavior, and — perhaps unintentionally — galvanizes the idea that we are both capable and entitled to seek our sexual truth in our genetics. Any positive consequences of the study are bound to coincide with negative ones, such as the pathologizing and stereotyping of same-sex sexual behaviors, and the political marginalizing of “biologically deviant” persons. What one person interprets as a justifiable reason for social equality, another views as an opportunity for science-based discrimination. A publication may include as many platitudinous qualifiers as it wants. But in the end, as the example of conversion therapy and the “How Gay Are You?” app demonstrate, statements against certain political interpretations of the science do little to deter those with harmful intentions. What is needed to ensure rigorous and politically responsible scientific practice is careful consideration of the political consequences prior to a study’s undertaking and in every aspect of research design, including data sampling and interpretation, as we note in our recent Science Letter.

No doubt, this is an exciting time for big data genomics. Unprecedented amounts of data and elegant new approaches to analyzing massive data sets are being developed every day. However, to improve not only the rigor and accuracy, but also the utility of the science being done, scientists must feel compelled to hold themselves accountable for their curiosities. To render scientific research less complicit in perpetuating injustice and oppression, scientists must be willing to forge new standards of ethical-epistemic practice, appropriate for the 21st century.[xix]

Authorship Statement:

The order above was discussed among Helen, Alex, and Maayan, and all three parties are in comfortable agreement.

Endnotes:

[i] Ganna, A., Verweij, K. J., Nivard, M. G., Maier, R., Wedow, R., Busch, A. S., ... & Lundström, S. (2019). Large-scale GWAS reveals insights into the genetic architecture of same-sex sexual behavior. Science, 365(6456), eaat7693.https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat7693

[ii] Neale, B. (2019, August 28). Opinion: Community engagement strengthens science. Retrieved November 19, 2019, from https://www.broadinstitute.org/blog/opinion-community-engagement-strengthens-science.

[iii] Bellenson, J. (2019, October). 122 Shades of Grey. Retrieved November 19, 2019, from

https://www.geneplaza.com/app-store/72/preview.

[iv] Neale, 2019.

[v] Belluck, P. (2019, August 30). Many Genes Influence Same-Sex Sexuality, Not a Single ‘Gay Gene.’ The New York Times.

[vi] Carino, G. (2019, August 29). Opinion: Unintended, but not unanticipated: the consequences of behavioral human genetics. Retrieved November 19, 2019, from https://www.broadinstitute.org/blog/opinion-unintended-not-unanticipated-consequences-human-behavioral-genetics.

[vii] Mills, M. C. (2019). How do genes affect same-sex behavior? Science, 365(6456), 869–870. doi: 10.1126/science.aay2726

[viii] Ganna A, Verweij KJH, Nivard MG, et al. Large-scale GWAS reveals insights into the genetic architecture of same-sex sexual behavior. Science. 2019;365(6456). doi: 10.1126/science.aat7693.

[ix] Marr, R. (2019, September 4). A study found there's no single "gay gene." Conservatives are using it to push conversion therapy. Retrieved November 19, 2019, from https://www.metroweekly.com/2019/09/a-study-found-theres-no-single-gay-gene-conservatives-are-using-it-to-push-conversion-therapy/.

[x] Neale, 2019.

[xi] Dreher, Rod. “Not Born This Way After All?” The American Conservative, The American Conservative, 29 Aug. 2019, from www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/not-born-this-way-no-gay-gene/.

[xii] Burke, J., & Okiror, S. (2019, October 15). Ugandan MPs press for death penalty for homosexual acts. Retrieved November 19, 2019, from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/15/ugandan-mps-press-for-death-penalty-for-homosexual-acts.

[xiii] Bellenson, 2019.

[xiv] Neale, 2019.

[xv] Belluck, 2019.

[xvi] Burns, K. (2019, September 5). The rise of anti-trans "radical" feminists, explained. Retrieved November 19, 2019, from https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/identities/2019/9/5/20840101/terfs-radical-feminists-gender-critical?__twitter_impression=true.

[xvii] TallBear, K. (2013). Native American DNA: Tribal Belonging and the False Promise of Genetic Science. (n.p.): University of Minnesota Press.

[xviii] Karkazis, K., Jordan-Young, R., Davis, G., & Camporesi, S. (2012). Out of Bounds? A Critique of the New Policies on Hyperandrogenism in Elite Female Athletes. The American Journal of Bioethics, 12(7), 3–16. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2012.680533 

Maayan Sudai, The testosterone rule—constructing fairness in professional sport, Journal of Law and the Biosciences, Volume 4, Issue 1, April 2017, Pages 181–193, https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsx004

[xix] Richardson, S. S. (2015). The Trustworthiness Deficit in Postgenomic Research on Human Intelligence. Hastings Center Report, 45(S1). doi: 10.1002/hast.493