Gay Turns Straight With Serotonin Addition?

[larelo6 3]

Chinese Researchers: Low Serotonin Levels Make Rats Gay

Chinese researchers have identified a chemical in the brain that controls sexual preference in mice. They found that male mice lose their normal preference for females if they have low levels of serotonin. Instead, they try to mate with either males or females.

It is the first time that a neurotransmitter has been shown to play a role in sexual preference in mammals, according to the researchers. They first bred male mice whose brains were not receptive to serotonin.

A series of experiments demonstrated that these mice had lost the preference for females. When presented with a choice of partners, they showed no overall preference for either males or females.

When just a male was introduced into the cage, the modified males were far more likely to mount the male and emit a 'mating call' normally given off when encountering females than unmodified males were. Similar results were achieved when a different set of mice were bred. These lacked the tryptonphan hydroxylase 2 gene, which is needed to produce serotonin. However, a preference for females could be 'restored' by injecting serotonin into the brain.

Published on March 25, 2011 @Gayapolis.com

Does it serve conservatives' agenda? :|

  Edited April 7, 2011 by larelo6  

[antsel 842]

Ok, so low serotonin levels are known to cause a number of side effects: fatigue, disturbed sleep patterns, depression, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder, loss of interest in sex, loss of interest in almost everything, social withdrawal... the list goes on. Could it not be that these negative side effects made the mice not care about who they mounted, rather than change their "preference". I don't know, but I think this is a more likely explanation.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Ok, so low serotonin levels are known to cause a number of side effects: fatigue, disturbed sleep patterns, depression, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder, loss of interest in sex, loss of interest in almost everything, social withdrawal... the list goes on. Could it not be that these negative side effects made the mice not care about who they mounted, rather than change their "preference". I don't know, but I think this is a more likely explanation.

Indeed. Further, has anyone repeated this experiment with the same result? Such reportage is contrary to proper science, and just makes for sensational (tabloid) journalism. The next thing you'll be having conservatives wanting to treat all gays with seratonin.

As for preferences, probably there are none. Are mice able to express such things? All of their behavior is driven by hormones and neurotransmitters. I find it hard to find preference in that.

  Edited April 7, 2011 by A Nonny Moose  

[timmie 988]

Well, I don't know how they did this research. It's obviously necessary that the researchers provide information about the way they did the research: it must be possible to do it again, and to check if the conclusions are correct. Of course, it can be possible that the researchers had already a certain idea, before the research was actually finished, and that could have influenced the conclusions: it's always possible, no-one is neutral, though they may think they are. It's always possible that the researchers' beliefs and opinions have influenced the outcome/their interpretation of the results, but we can't tell that of course.

Nonetheless, I find it interesting to discover what 'makes' people are gay. You could ask the question 'why do we need to know that?' Well, we don't NEED to know, but I guess it's just human 'nature' to want to know why some things are the way they are. Obviously: discovering what 'causes' homosexuality could be potentially dangerous. If we know what 'causes' it, we might be able to 'cure' it, but do we really want that? Is that ethical?

  Edited April 7, 2011 by timmie  

[antsel 842]

^ ^ I agree with everything you said.

[Vlasky 1,803]

Yeah right! The same way that it was scientifically proven few decades back that electrocution and hosing people with ice cold water cures schizophrenia.

[-Lexus- 2]

Ok, so low serotonin levels are known to cause a number of side effects: fatigue, disturbed sleep patterns, depression, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder, loss of interest in sex, loss of interest in almost everything, social withdrawal... the list goes on. Could it not be that these negative side effects made the mice not care about who they mounted, rather than change their "preference". I don't know, but I think this is a more likely explanation.

Indeed. Further, has anyone repeated this experiment with the same result? Such reportage is contrary to proper science, and just makes for sensational (tabloid) journalism. The next thing you'll be having conservatives wanting to treat all gays with seratonin.

As for preferences, probably there are none. Are mice able to express such things? All of their behavior is driven by hormones and neurotransmitters. I find it hard to find preference in that.

That means you have no preference as well, since all your behavior is based on neurotransmitters and hormones as well. At best everything you do is chance, at worst only the result of an incredibly complex sum of factors that lead to you reacting in a certain way. Preference and choice are just illusions to prevent ourselves from accepting the horrible truth that you have no control whatsoever on your life and that existence has absolutely no point. But thats a whole other discussion

And its a horribly written article. First the mice were made so that they wouldnt respond to serotonine, then you can cure them of their gayness by injecting serotonin directly into the brain Seems kinda contradictory. Still, you guys are kinda quick to denounce the whole research while I doubt any of you have actually know in any detail how the study was done, or that any of you have done any research in this area yourself.

[antsel 842]

Preference and choice are just illusions to prevent ourselves from accepting the horrible truth that you have no control whatsoever on your life and that existence has absolutely no point. But thats a whole other discussion

True. Your brain tricks you into thinking you made the choice... Scary.

[Cob92 360]

I think the effect of this could be better described as "sexual apathy" or a loss of sexual preference rather than a switch over to homosexuality.

If we know what 'causes' it, we might be able to 'cure' it, but do we really want that? Is that ethical?

It's ethical as long as no one's forced to do it. If we really believe that a person's body is their property and that said person has complete sovereignty over their body, it shouldn't be unethical for that person to alter the physiology of their body to better suit their tastes.

[-Lexus- 2]

I think the effect of this could be better described as "sexual apathy" or a loss of sexual preference rather than a switch over to homosexuality.

If we know what 'causes' it, we might be able to 'cure' it, but do we really want that? Is that ethical?

It's ethical as long as no one's forced to do it. If we really believe that a person's body is their property and that said person has complete sovereignty over their body, it shouldn't be unethical for that person to alter the physiology of their body to better suit their tastes.

Indeed. Its about as ethical as allowing people to have sex changes when they feel they were born in the wrong body.

Still, it remains to be seen how many actually want to be changed and if you can effectively turn this into a cure. I mean, serotonin controls so much aspects of behavior, that I doubt you can just turn it into some pill.

[timmie 988]

I think the effect of this could be better described as "sexual apathy" or a loss of sexual preference rather than a switch over to homosexuality.

If we know what 'causes' it, we might be able to 'cure' it, but do we really want that? Is that ethical?

It's ethical as long as no one's forced to do it. If we really believe that a person's body is their property and that said person has complete sovereignty over their body, it shouldn't be unethical for that person to alter the physiology of their body to better suit their tastes.

I think this poses some problems. The first question is: how do you define 'force'? Is it when somebody directly tells you 'take that pill, young man, or else...' (if it were possible, of course)? I think it is. But is a nation that refuses to recognize gay marriage also putting pressure on you? Some people would say yes, others no.

Also, this would be a debate very similar to that about the designerbabies. How far can we go in modifying our 'real' selves? What can we change, what can't we change? Where do we draw the line? Do we want 'real' people? Or do we want complete freedom to change every aspect that we want to change, and that is changeable? What does the word 'real' mean? With the designerbabies there's of course also the question if the parent can decide what their child must be?

I think you said it right: 'if we believe that...'. The question is: do we believe that a person has complete sovereignty over his body?

These are very interesting questions, I think, questions that don't simply have 1 answer. And if such an answer existed, I can tell you: I don't have it. I don't know what my opinion is in this matter, but it sure is an interesting debate.

  Edited April 7, 2011 by timmie  

[-Lexus- 2]

I think this poses some problems. The first question is: how do you define 'force'? Is it when somebody directly tells you 'take that pill, young man, or else...' (if it were possible, of course)? I think it is. But is a nation that refuses to recognize gay marriage also putting pressure on you? Some people would say yes, others no.

Good point, seeing how in America people are sent to straight camps to 'cure' them from being gay and stuff. I bet these kind of nutjobs wouldnt waste any time forcing gays to take anti gay pills to 'cure' them.

[antsel 842]

I mean, serotonin controls so much aspects of behavior, that I doubt you can just turn it into some pill.

You can't exactly take a "serotonin pill", but they do have SSRIs (selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors) which inhibits the re-uptake of serotonin to the presynatic cell which increases the amount of serotonin available for the postsynaptic receptor. SSRIs are used to treat depression, anxiety and OCD.

[madhatter106 3,933]

Mice are hot.

[antsel 842]

Mice are hot.

The females? The males? Or do you not have a preference?

[Duke87 1,070]

Okay, so, low serotonin makes lab rats gay. Lovely.

I wouldn't take that to mean much, though, considering that we have no shortage of people out there with low serotonin (depression, OCD, etc.) who are not gay. Would be interesting to see if there is also a correlation in humans, but somehow I suspect that sexuality isn't going to be reliably swayed by altering just one chemical since the human brain just isn't that simple.

Nonetheless, this sort of thing will no doubt be taken by some to imply that homosexuality is curable. Of course, if true, it would also debunk the myth that homosexuality is a choice... so ideologically you could spin it both ways.

[fukuda 351]

Not so long ago everyone was excited with a hormone called Leptin. Hype was all around: media, scientists and companies were boasting around the incredible effects of this hormone in mice and rats, obese animals administered with Leptin went back to their "optimal" weight in no time!

Even better, humans seemed to have a similar weight-control system in the brain. The final cure for obesity and metabolic syndrome was around the corner!

Then unexpectedly what worked in rodents didn't work in humans, weight control in humans was mainly controlled by psychological factors instead than hormones. Oops.

This was one of the biggest and worst fiascos the biomedical industry ever suffered. This, saccharine and other cases taught everyone to be wary about animal models and any human extrapolations based on them.

A significant part of cat or dog metabolism and signalling are substantially different than ours (sometimes leading to rather sad veterinary cases), the same seems to happen with mice.

================================================================================

That means you have no preference as well, since all your behavior is based on neurotransmitters and hormones as well.

That's about as meaningful as saying that humans are made of quarks. There's more to human behavior than chemicals... There are several other structural levels involved, more important than simple neurotransmitters. Neurotransmitters and hormones are tools bigger structures use to signal in spatial and temporal frameworks, but they're not the main thing going on.

First the mice were made so that they wouldnt respond to serotonine, then you can cure them of their gayness by injecting serotonin directly into the brain

No, one of the enzymes manufacturing serotonin in the brain was removed genetically. The brain was still able to respond to serotonin if administered.

Still, you guys are kinda quick to denounce the whole research while I doubt any of you have actually know in any detail how the study was done, or that any of you have done any research in this area yourself.

The research was published in a journal, it's not like some obscure thing. And anyone can read how the study was done, since it has been freely uploaded by the faculty who published it.*

And yes, I've done research in this area myself. (no, not rodent sexuality , neurobiology)

I'm not going to denounce the article itself, which seems to be a decent one, I'm just extremely skeptic about the human extrapolations (and also about any conclusions you can get from shutting down an entire subset of the brain playing several functions).

*Feel free to ask me if you don't understand some of the terms or methods.

[-Lexus- 2]

Not so long ago everyone was excited with a hormone called Leptin. Hype was all around: media, scientists and companies were boasting around the incredible effects of this hormone in mice and rats, obese animals administered with Leptin went back to their "optimal" weight in no time!

Even better, humans seemed to have a similar weight-control system in the brain. The final cure for obesity and metabolic syndrome was around the corner!

Then unexpectedly what worked in rodents didn't work in humans, weight control in humans was mainly controlled by psychological factors instead than hormones. Oops.

Leptin does control weight and eating patterns in humans right? Its the hormone that tells us when we are full. Its just that with most obese people, they somehow stopped responding to Leptin or screwed up their Leptin production, causing them to eat more.

That's about as meaningful as saying that humans are made of quarks. There's more to human behavior than chemicals... There are several other structural levels involved, more important than simple neurotransmitters. Neurotransmitters and hormones are tools bigger structures use to signal in spatial and temporal frameworks, but they're not the main thing going on.

My main point was more that there is no such thing as a soul or a spirit or something else that is inside you that is 'you'. You is nothing more then the result of a lot of structures in your body working together, adding up to be what you refer to as yourself. However, since these are natural physical structures they work according to certain rules, laws, etc causing you to be nothing more then the result of a really large sum of all kinds of different factors that force you to act in a certain way. Hence, there is no choice possible, its all already set out for you.

But thats more a philosophical thing.

No, one of the enzymes manufacturing serotonin in the brain was removed genetically. The brain was still able to respond to serotonin if administered.

Ah thank you for clearing that up. Like I said, the gaysite article and the Indian times article where horribly written. I havent actually had time to search for or read the journal one published by the researchers themselves.

The research was published in a journal, it's not like some obscure thing. And anyone can read how the study was done, since it has been freely uploaded by the faculty who published it.*

And yes, I've done research in this area myself. (no, not rodent sexuality , neurobiology)

I'm not going to denounce the article itself, which seems to be a decent one, I'm just extremely skeptic about the human extrapolations (and also about any conclusions you can get from shutting down an entire subset of the brain playing several functions).

*Feel free to ask me if you don't understand some of the terms or methods.

Thanks for the article. As I said, I hadnt had time to search or read it, and now that I have time you saved me a bit of time searching for it.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

"The best laid plans of mice and men gang oft agley" Rabbie Burns.

[EyeofMobius 27]

My biggest issue with any physiological studies of sexuality is why does it need to be done and who is going to use the data collected to further their own interpretations. When I was reading through this thread I immediately hoped that anti-gay groups in countries like Uganda do not bring this under their banner to increase the footing they already hold in the law-making of their countries.

I very much prefer leaving sexuality to be explored on more philisophical terms. Expressing feelings and ideas through open discussion is what I see as the way to go in this world when it comes to animal behaviour.

[Duke87 1,070]

My biggest issue with any physiological studies of sexuality is why does it need to be done and who is going to use the data collected to further their own interpretations.

What you're basically saying here is that we shouldn't have a desire to understand how it works, we should just accept that it is.

That... does not sit well with me. The thirst and quest for knowledge is one of the defining traits of mankind. Suppressing this is the behavior of those who wish to conceal the truth for their own personal gain, and is indeed oppressive.

This is a subject that is absolutely worth studying, and we shouldn't let the haters scare us away from that. If we refuse to scientifically study sexuality because we are worried about what various homophobic groups might do with the information, ultimately we are giving them exactly what they want: a concealing of the truth, and the ability for them to fill the void of knowledge with their propaganda.

[Cob92 360]

I think this poses some problems. The first question is: how do you define 'force'? Is it when somebody directly tells you 'take that pill, young man, or else...' (if it were possible, of course)? I think it is. But is a nation that refuses to recognize gay marriage also putting pressure on you? Some people would say yes, others no.

Good point, seeing how in America people are sent to straight camps to 'cure' them from being gay and stuff. I bet these kind of nutjobs wouldnt waste any time forcing gays to take anti gay pills to 'cure' them.

No one is forced to go to those camps. They can't legally make you go; it's a choice.

Also, this would be a debate very similar to that about the designerbabies. How far can we go in modifying our 'real' selves? What can we change, what can't we change? Where do we draw the line? Do we want 'real' people? Or do we want complete freedom to change every aspect that we want to change, and that is changeable? What does the word 'real' mean? With the designerbabies there's of course also the question if the parent can decide what their child must be?

My view is that we should be able to modify any and every aspect of the human body to bring the species closer to what we consider to be perfection. Of course, every person probably has a different perception of what the perfect human being is, so there would still be differences between individuals because of their parents' perceptions. Mankind will soon be attaining the means to take control of its own evolution, and we should not hesitate to use them.

[-Lexus- 2]

I think this poses some problems. The first question is: how do you define 'force'? Is it when somebody directly tells you 'take that pill, young man, or else...' (if it were possible, of course)? I think it is. But is a nation that refuses to recognize gay marriage also putting pressure on you? Some people would say yes, others no.

Good point, seeing how in America people are sent to straight camps to 'cure' them from being gay and stuff. I bet these kind of nutjobs wouldnt waste any time forcing gays to take anti gay pills to 'cure' them.

No one is forced to go to those camps. They can't legally make you go; it's a choice.

They arent physically forced no, but there are way more effective and traumatizing ways to do the same. Like telling your gay kid hes no longer part of the family if he doesnt get cured, or that he will burn and suffer for an eternity in the lake of fire if he continues in his gay ways. Social pressure is so much more effective, and the nice thing about it is that its pretty much always legal.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Social pressure is everything in rearing kids and living with each other. It is the main motivator ("What will x think of me if I y?).

Even science is motivated in this way. People who become "scientists" do so because they lean that way from some pressures that were exerted on them from birth or later. For example, if some close relative is a Doctor, there is every good chance that the rest of the family will pressure all the kids to become Doctors (of what, is irrelevant).

In no way should any research be suppressed, but we have to have the moral understanding to employ the results with sanity.

Paul Tibbets was very badly affected by the fact that he flew the plane that incinerated Hiroshima, even though he had atteneded tests at Los Alamos. What do you think Harry Truman felt about it? Was he just more ajusted? It was his decision, and not Col. Tibbets'.

A lot of the people who worked on the Manhattan project had a trouble later with guilt. Albert Einstein felt he should never have written that letter, and he didn't even work on the Manhattan project.

So, one study showed that gay(?) mice can be made straight by dosing them with a chemical. So what? What do we do with this knowledge, even if it were confirmed to work in humans? Mice are not humans as Fukuda has said, so when do the human tests start? Any volunteers?

Who will bell the cat?

[EyeofMobius 27]

My biggest issue with any physiological studies of sexuality is why does it need to be done and who is going to use the data collected to further their own interpretations.

What you're basically saying here is that we shouldn't have a desire to understand how it works, we should just accept that it is.

That... does not sit well with me. The thirst and quest for knowledge is one of the defining traits of mankind. Suppressing this is the behavior of those who wish to conceal the truth for their own personal gain, and is indeed oppressive.

This is a subject that is absolutely worth studying, and we shouldn't let the haters scare us away from that. If we refuse to scientifically study sexuality because we are worried about what various homophobic groups might do with the information, ultimately we are giving them exactly what they want: a concealing of the truth, and the ability for them to fill the void of knowledge with their propaganda.

My comment isn't designed to imply that I don't think we should know how it works. The summary of my arguement is that I feel that examining how it works is best achieved through critical thinking and discussion rather than lab testing. It gives me concern that at somepoint in the future I am going to have my lifestyle determined by a doctor's prescription; I am already at a point where I question the treatments of physicians due largely to the fact that I seldom meet a doctor who understands my career line let alone my lifestyle.

I agree with your point of not being afraid of the information to prevent the suppression of information; I just don't see value in knowing the chemical or genetic makeup of feelings.

[hym 358]

I just don't see value in knowing the chemical or genetic makeup of feelings.

A means to treat depression, perhaps? There are millions of people who could benefit from a better understanding of how people experience the emotions and feelings that they do.

[fukuda 351]

Leptin does control weight and eating patterns in humans right? Its the hormone that tells us when we are full. Its just that with most obese people, they somehow stopped responding to Leptin or screwed up their Leptin production, causing them to eat more.

It doesn't really tell when someone is full(other petides do that), it just signals how much adipose tissue an individual has, as it increases linearly with fat mass.

The real role of Leptin in humans is still a lil' bit vague right now.

The point is, Leptin by itself worked wonders with obese mice, conclusions were driven way too early and the disappointment (and loss of invested money) were immense.

Mankind will soon be attaining the means to take control of its own evolution,

Based on our current knowledge we'll be building floating cities on Mars before being able to do that. (I mean doing that in a non-eugenic way ofc)

Even science is motivated in this way. People who become "scientists" do so because they lean that way from some pressures that were exerted on them from birth or later. For example, if some close relative is a Doctor, there is every good chance that the rest of the family will pressure all the kids to become Doctors (of what, is irrelevant).

Doesn't seem to be the case of any of my coworkers or pupils afaik... Excepting some who decided to become high school teachers because it seemed "easy" to them after seeing their parents' job. Very few of them have any scientist relative, some have physician parents.

The summary of my arguement is that I feel that examining how it works is best achieved through critical thinking and discussion rather than lab testing.

Because scientific research requires no critical thinking and discussion aside from lab testing

A means to treat depression, perhaps? There are millions of people who could benefit from a better understanding of how people experience the emotions and feelings that they do.

Yes, basing psychiatry and psychology in something more than generalizations would be nicer.

[Cob92 360]

I think this poses some problems. The first question is: how do you define 'force'? Is it when somebody directly tells you 'take that pill, young man, or else...' (if it were possible, of course)? I think it is. But is a nation that refuses to recognize gay marriage also putting pressure on you? Some people would say yes, others no.

Good point, seeing how in America people are sent to straight camps to 'cure' them from being gay and stuff. I bet these kind of nutjobs wouldnt waste any time forcing gays to take anti gay pills to 'cure' them.

No one is forced to go to those camps. They can't legally make you go; it's a choice.

They arent physically forced no, but there are way more effective and traumatizing ways to do the same. Like telling your gay kid hes no longer part of the family if he doesnt get cured, or that he will burn and suffer for an eternity in the lake of fire if he continues in his gay ways. Social pressure is so much more effective, and the nice thing about it is that its pretty much always legal.

Social pressure is an integral part of a civilized society; it upholds some cultural uniformity to bind the society together. You can't have everyone being 100% independent minded, or what you end up with is not a nation, but a mass of individuals all with conflicting agendas.

[-Lexus- 2]

I think this poses some problems. The first question is: how do you define 'force'? Is it when somebody directly tells you 'take that pill, young man, or else...' (if it were possible, of course)? I think it is. But is a nation that refuses to recognize gay marriage also putting pressure on you? Some people would say yes, others no.

Good point, seeing how in America people are sent to straight camps to 'cure' them from being gay and stuff. I bet these kind of nutjobs wouldnt waste any time forcing gays to take anti gay pills to 'cure' them.

No one is forced to go to those camps. They can't legally make you go; it's a choice.

They arent physically forced no, but there are way more effective and traumatizing ways to do the same. Like telling your gay kid hes no longer part of the family if he doesnt get cured, or that he will burn and suffer for an eternity in the lake of fire if he continues in his gay ways. Social pressure is so much more effective, and the nice thing about it is that its pretty much always legal.

Social pressure is an integral part of a civilized society; it upholds some cultural uniformity to bind the society together. You can't have everyone being 100% independent minded, or what you end up with is not a nation, but a mass of individuals all with conflicting agendas.

Im not criticizing social pressure. Its not just an integral part of civilized society, its an integral part of being a healthy human. But that doesnt mean it cant be used as some weapon to make people do things that would normally go against their nature. Be it sending people to these fraudulent camps that claim to 'cure' people from being gay or orchestrating an ethnic cleansing, it can all be achieved with enough social pressure.

[hamsterTK 93]

These studies all seem to be rather simple. Give the animal something to change its behavior of dominance or submission, so it will either try to hump another animal or bend over and take it. Also many creatures will mount one another not for the purposes of sex but to show their position in a group which is not an accepted (civilized)human behavior. Only applies to prison inmates.

Don't know if that really explains the complex nature of sexuality as it relates to society, etc. Or conversely, maybe it does. I mean, whose to say the concept of a person considering themselves as being homosexual as part of their identity isn't itself a construct formed within a strictly heterosexual culture?

Also even if being gay was circumstantial or a minor physiological difference that could be reversed, who cares? The only person who should care about your reproductive fitness is you and who knows, it might be evolutionarily beneficial. Don't let phony social darwinists tell you otherwise.

History of human sexuality: I say screw the other clan's polygamists. It's not really about the sky god, they just want to hog all the women for themselves, I say my tribe and yours are going to kill all of them and enslave all their young warriors too. I'll let you guys be gay for now, because the harvest is bad and the wives are unhappy, but there will be a time when we need to be fruitful as well, so be flexible.

  Edited April 22, 2011 by hamsterTK