Reply #37: Dan Savage did simplify the situation, as a friend who audits research points out.

[ehrnst]

Here is her response to me concerning Dan's take on the study:

"As someone who audits clinical research, I think this is a little more complicated than the way Dan Savage (whose writing I enjoy) is reporting it. This is a potential treatment for a specific condition. The Principal Investigator is merely speculating about the affect the treatment may have on behaviors in the future. Also, the word "abnormal" means something different in a scientific publication than it does in other types of writing."

She had read the article that Dan is commenting on:

http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Bioethicsforum/Post.aspx?id=4754&blogid=140

"The majority of researchers and clinicians interested in the use of prenatal “dex” focus on preventing development of ambiguous genitalia in girls with CAH. CAH results in an excess of androgens prenatally, and this can lead to a “masculinizing” of a female fetus’s genitals. One group of researchers, however, seems to be suggesting that prenatal dex also might prevent affected girls from turning out to be homosexual or bisexual. "

"They go on to suggest that the work might offer some insight into the influence of prenatal hormones on the development of sexual orientation in general. “That this may apply also to sexual orientation in at least a subgroup of women is suggested by the fact that earlier research has repeatedly shown that about one-third of homosexual women have (modestly) increased levels of androgens.” They “conclude that the findings support a sexual-differentiation perspective involving prenatal androgens on the development of sexual orientation.”