[其它] Is There A "Gay Gene"?

看板gay作者gsuper (Logit(odds))時間12年前 (2012/08/14 17:04)推噓8(8推 0噓 48→)

留言56則, 11人參與討論串1/2 (看更多)

本篇文章來自網路 , 翻得不好請見諒 , 也附上原文供大家矯正 http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html 翻這篇的目的是因為最近家人出櫃我很震驚所以開始在網路上找資料一方面找理由讓自己接受繼定事實另一方面也回應出櫃的家人 , 你說你生來如此 , 為何你如此確信? ---------------------------------------------------------------- Many laymen now believe that homosexuality is part of who a person really is from the moment of conception. 許多外行人相信 , 同性戀是 "同志當事人當時的想法(不一定是永久的)" The "genetic and unchangeable" theory has been actively promoted by gay activists and the popular media. Is homosexuality really an inborn and normal variant of human nature? 同志社會活動者(家)與大眾媒體積極宣導一種理論 , "同志是遺傳性且不可改變" , 但 , 同性戀是否真的是天生與人類正常變異? No. There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is simply "genetic." And none of the research claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public. 不 , 沒有任何證據支持同性戀僅僅是"遺傳"決定 , 也沒有任何一個研究如此陳述 , 只有記者與某些學者在公開演講時口頭陳述 How The Public Was Misled (公眾是如何被誤導的?) In July of 1993, the prestigious research journal Science published a study by Dean Hamer which claims that there might be a gene for homosexuality. Research seemed to be on the verge of proving that homosexuality is innate, genetic and therefore unchangeablea normal variant of human nature. 1993年7月 , 著名的 Science 期刊刊登了Dean Hamer的文章 , 宣稱有一個基因與同性戀有關 , 研究似乎已經達到離核心不遠的邊緣 , 隱隱地支持同性戀具有天生與遺傳性, 而因此在遺傳上具有生下來就不可改變的性質. Soon afterward, National Public Radio trumpeted those findings. Newsweek ran the cover story, "Gay Gene?" The Wall Street Journal announced, "Research Points Toward a Gay Gene...Normal Variation." 隨即 , 美國國家公共廣播電台鼓吹此研究結果 , 新聞周刊(Newsweek) 在封面故事下的標語為 "同性戀基因?" , 華爾街期刊宣稱 "研究指出同性戀基因是正常存在於人類族群的少數基因" Of course, certain necessary qualifiers were added within those news stories. But only an expert knew what those qualifiers meant. The vast majority of readers were urged to believe that homosexuals had been proven to be "born that way." 當然 , 這些新聞故事有經過許多必須的審稿與修正 , 但只有專家才能了解這些訊息的真正意義. 大眾被引導去相信“同性戀天生如此” In order to grasp what is really going on, one needs to understand some little known facts about behavioral genetics. 為了把握住真正的情況 , 人必須事先理解一些不普及的訊息“行為遺傳學” Gene Linkage Studies (基因連鎖研究) Dean Hamer and his colleagues had performed a common type of behavioral genetics investigation called the "linkage study." Researchers identify a behavioral trait that runs in a family, and then: a) look for a chromosomal variant in the genetic material of that family, and b) determine whether that variant is more frequent in family members who share the particular trait. Dean Hamer和他的同事進行了一個很常見的行為遺傳研究 "同性戀之家族分析", 針對有同性戀的家族中的同性戀比例做研究 , 包含以下兩重點 a) 尋找家族中的染色體遺傳變異 (一些相對少見的遺傳因子) b) 判斷這些少見的遺傳因子是否在同性戀中比例較多 To the layman, the "correlation" of a genetic structure with a behavioral trait means that trait "is genetic"-in other words, inherited. 對外行人的解釋 , 某些遺傳因子相關於同性戀行為 , 則這些行為會被認為是遺傳上可繼承的. (與後天影響無關 , 生下來就被決定) In fact, it means absolutely nothing of the sort, and it should be emphasized that there is virtually no human trait without innumerable such correlations. 事實上 , 這些相關性與這些研究並非大家想的如此 , 所有遺傳因子或多或少都與無數的人類行為會有一定程度的相關性 (統計稱為混淆因子 , 假相關) Scientists Know the Truth about "Gay Gene" Research (科學家知道 "同性戀基因" 研究的真相) **譯者註 : 這裡指的是真實研究真相 + 報章渲染的假相 But before we consider the specifics, here is what serious scientists think about recent genetics-of-behavior research. From Science, 1994: Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated."Unfortunately," says Yale's [Dr. Joel] Gelernter, "it's hard to come up with many" findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated. "...All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute."{1} 在我們考慮細節之前 , 這裡有段說法較能解釋最近學界對遺傳行為研究之觀點 : (1994 Science 期刊) 一次又一次當科學家宣稱某些遺傳因子關聯於某些人類行為(同性戀行為), 最後都因為實驗難以被重複驗證而被迫收回. 不幸地 , 複雜的人類行為與基因的關聯性之研究成果 , 很難再被重複驗證 , 每次研究結果都被大肆宣揚 , 都被記者當作不可懷疑的結果報導 , 且最後總是令人蒙羞(不可被重複驗證而被學界拒絕). Homosexual Twin Studies (以雙胞胎作同性戀研究) ***錯誤率較低的實驗設計 , 應對於錯誤率高的行為遺傳研究 Two American activists recently published studies showing that if one of a pair of identical twins is homosexual, the other member of the pair will be, too, in just under 50% of the cases. On this basis, they claim that "homosexuality is genetic." 最近兩個美國同志社會活動者(家)發表了針對同卵雙胞胎的研究 , 指出若其中一個是同性戀 , 則另一個也是的機會很高 ; 但50%的同卵雙胞胎並非同性戀 , 在以上的基礎 , 他們宣稱“同性戀是遺傳” 譯者註 : 此研究的強勢點在於 , 若對比於社會上的比例 , 同卵雙胞胎同時為同性戀的傾向很明顯 , 代表受到遺傳所影響很明確 ; 弱勢點在於 , 在他研究的同卵雙胞胎中 , 低於50%的兄弟會同時是同性戀 , 同時也代表了遺傳至少不能解釋 50% 以上的狀況. But two other genetic researchers--one heads one of the largest genetics departments in the country, the other is at Harvard--comment: While the authors interpreted their findings as evidence for a genetic basis for homosexuality, we think that the data in fact provide strong evidence for the influence of the environment.{2} 但另外兩位遺傳學者 , 一位在美國最大的遺傳部門工作 , 一位是哈佛人 , 兩人認為上述的研究 , 事實上也同時支持同性戀是受到環境所影響 (比方說相同的成長環境 , 或兄弟互相影響) The author of the lead article on genes and behavior in a special issue of Science speaks of the renewed scientific recognition of the importance of environment. He notes the growing understanding that: ... the interaction of genes and environment is much more complicated than the simple "violence genes" and intelligence genes" touted in the popular press.The same data that show the effects of genes, also point to the enormous influence of nongenetic factors.{3} 在 Science 所舉辦的特殊議題會議中 , 原作者表示他也認同環境因子相當重要 : 基因與環境的交互作用 , 遠比記者吹捧的 "暴力基因" 與 "智力基因" 等故事要複雜得多. 相同的一份 data , 既能支持基因影響與相關於同性戀的假說 , 也能支持是具有影響力的環境因子所誘發. More Modest Claims to the Scientific Community (科學社群中更保守的陳述) Researchers' public statements to the press are often grand and far-reaching. But when answering the scientific community, they speak much more cautiously. 科學家對記者的採訪 , 通常把研究成果講的很偉大與影響深遠, 但回到學術中的演講後 , 科學家的演講才會恢復謹慎小心. "Gay gene" researcher Dean Hamer was asked by Scientific American if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology. He replied: "Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors...not negate the psychosocial factors."{4} 當“同性戀基因”的作者Dean Hamer , 被美國科學人雜誌採訪時問到 :“同性戀是否僅僅歸因於遺傳?”, 他回答到 : “絕非如此 , 從同卵雙胞胎實驗中 , 我們已知道至少有一半以上同性戀的同卵兄弟是異性戀 , 因此同性戀行為並非絕對由基因繼承 , 我們的研究僅試著指出 , 遺傳因子確實能解釋一部分的同性戀傾向 , 而非否定其他任何可能的因子如心理因子等” But in qualifying their findings, researchers often use language that will surely evade general understanding making statements that will continue to be avoided by the popular press, such as: 但對於研究成果的發表(寫論文) , 學者通常使用很難被理解的學術語言來避免被大眾輕易理解, 也迴避被記者直接引用 , 例如 : ...the question of the appropriate significance level to apply to a non-Mendelian trait such as sexual orientation is problematic.{5} "對於將非孟德爾遺傳定率遺傳因子 , 應用在同性戀傾向預測的統計顯著程度 , 標準究竟要定在哪 , 是一個令人頭痛的問題" Sounds too complex to bother translating? This is actually a very important statement. In layman's terms, this means: 上面的陳述方式(論文式)對一般人是無法理解的 , 對一般人適合的陳述應如下: It is not possible to know what the findings mean--if anything--since sexual orientation cannot possibly be inherited in the direct way eyecolor is. 即便目前的同性戀研究有任何成果 , 也無法確定它的真實意義 , 因為同性戀行為不像眼睛的顏色這般單純 , 只與基因有關不受後天影響. Thus, to their fellow scientists, the researchers have been honestly acknowledging the limitations of their research. However, the media doesn't understand that message. 因此 , 論文內有正確地陳述學術研究成果的推論極限 , 但媒體可不. Columnist Ann Landers, for example, tells her readers that "homosexuals are born, not made." The media offers partial truths because the scientific reality is simply too unexciting to make the evening news; too complex for mass consumption; and furthermore, not fully and accurately understood by reporters. 舉例來說 , 專欄作家 Ann Landers 告訴他的讀者“同性戀是天生 , 並非後天產生”, 媒體僅提供一部分的真相 , 因為科學的真相太過於不刺激 , 無法作為夜間新聞 , 太過複雜而無法被大眾消化吸收 , 也太難在短時間的報導中被精準的陳述. Accurate Reporting Will Never Come in "Sound Bites" (精確的報告永遠不會在演講場合出現) There are no "lite," soundbite versions of behavioral genetics that are not fundamentally in error in one way or another. 沒有任何一個精簡的行為遺傳學演講 , 能免於一定程度以上的根本性錯誤 Nonetheless, if one grasps at least some of the basics, in simple form, it will be possible to see exactly why the current research into homosexuality means so little and will continue to mean little, even should the quality of the research methods improve so long as it remains driven by political, rather than scientific objectives. 儘管如此 , 若大眾能至少掌握上述的基礎思考 , 就能深入地理解為何現今對同性戀的研究幾乎不具意義 , 且將來也是繼續如此 , 即便研究的品質與方法學在進步 , 也仍受到政治觀點的影響 , 而非單純的學術觀點. Understanding the Theory(理解理論) There are only two major principles that need to be carefully understood in order to see through the distortions of the recent research. They are as follows: 1. Heritable does not mean inherited. 2. Genetics research which is truly meaningful will identify, and then focus on, only traits that are directly inherited. 為了理解最近研究的扭曲與誤解 , 這裡有兩個主要的概念必須要清楚的釐清 1.可遺傳不等於繼承 (基因有遺傳到 , 不能保證一定是) 2.遺傳研究只能針對可遺傳並直接繼承的外顯因子 (如眼色) , 不能明確界定行為因子 Almost every human characteristic is in significant measure heritable. But few human behavioral traits are directly inherited, in the manner of height, for example, or eye color. Inherited means "directly determined by genes," with little or no way of preventing or modifying the trait through a change in the environment. 幾乎所有的人類的外顯特徵都是可遺傳 , 但很少數的人類行為是直接繼承 , 舉例來說 , 眼睛的顏色既可遺傳 , 也可直接繼承 , 我們也無法後天去改變 , 或透過環境影響而變化. ***譯者註 : 繼承(inherited) = 100% 由遺傳導致 , 無法透過後天改變可遺傳(Heritable) = 與基因與遺傳有關所以遺傳不可過度延伸成繼承 ***譯者註 : 這裡要講的重點就是無法科學性的界定同性戀行為是由基因所100% 引發 , 或許某種程度是可遺傳 , 但絕非繼承 How to "Prove" That Basketball-Players are Born that Way (如何證明籃球員是天生如此) **譯者註 : 研究方法相同於證明同性戀基因 Suppose you are motivated to demonstrate for political reasons--that there is a basketball gene that makes people grow up to be basketball players. You would use the same methods that have been used with homosexuality: (1) twin studies; (2) brain dissections; (3) gene "linkage" studies. 若你要研究人是否因 "籃球員基因" 而變成球員 , 你會用相同於同性戀研究的方法 , 如下 (1)雙胞胎 (2)腦部切片 (3)基因連鎖分析 (遺傳行為科學) The basic idea in twin studies is to show that the more genetically similar two people are, the more likely it is that they will share the trait you are studying. 用雙胞胎的理由是因為越相似的基因 , 就越有可能有相似的遺傳因子 So you identify groups of twins in which at least one is a basketball player. You will probably find that if one identical twin is a basketball player, his twin brother is statistically more likely be one, too. You would need to create groups of different kinds of pairs to make further comparisons--one set of identical twin pairs, one set of nonidentical twin pairs, one set of sibling pairs, etc. 當執行統計研究後, 大概會發現雙胞胎較容易同時是籃球員. 然後 , 再下一步是更細緻地分成三群 , 同卵雙胞胎配對 , 不同卵兄弟 , 堂表兄弟. Using the "concordance rate" (the percentage of pairs in which both twins are basketball players, or both are not), you would calculate a "heritability" rate. The concordance rate would be quite high--just as in the concordance rate for homosexuality. 用協同率估計遺傳率後 , 大概也會發現在兄弟間會有高協同率. Then, you announce to the reporter from Sports Illustrated: "Our research demonstrates that basketball playing is strongly heritable." (And you would be right. It would be "heritable"--but not directly inherited. Few readers would be aware of the distinction, however.) 之後你對運動期刊陳述 "我們的研究證實籃球運動的優勢具有可遺傳性" (你會是正確的 , 某些方面的確是可遺傳 , 但並非直接繼承 , 只有少數人會注意到這點) Soon after, the article appears. It says: "...New research shows that basketball playing is probably inherited. Basketball players are apparently 'born that way!' A number of outside researchers examined the work and found it substantially accurate and well performed..." 然後記者馬上就改寫成 "新的研究指出 , 籃球技能可能是可以繼承 , 籃球運動員似乎生來如此! 有些研究發現是大幅精準與善於…." But no one (other than the serious scientist) notices the media's inaccurate reporting. 但多數人不會發現報導已經漸漸地不精準了 What All Neuroscientists Know:The Brain Changes with Use (所有的腦神經學家都知道 , 腦部結構隨著使用方式不同而改變) Then you move on to conduct some brain research. As in the well-known LeVay brain study which measured parts of the hypothalamus, your colleagues perform a series of autopsies on the brains of some dead people who, they have reason to believe, were basketball players. Next, they do the same with a group of dead nonbasketball players. Your colleagues report that, on average, "Certain parts of the brain long thought to be involved with basketball playing are much larger in the group of basketball players." 接下來你考慮腦神經科學研究, 在一個著名的研究, LeVay從死去的籃球員作下視丘腦切片(實驗組) , 接下來從不是籃球員的人們也蒐集腦切片(對照組) , 後來發現籃球員的腦部在某些部份特別大塊(發達) A few national newspapers pick up on the story and editorialize, "Clearly, basketball playing is not a choice. Not only does basketball playing run in families, but even these people's brains are different." 少數的新聞採訪此故事並校稿發佈 "很清楚地 , 籃球打得好這件事並不是一個自由意志的選擇 , 不僅具有家族性 , 連腦部結構都與普通人不同" **譯者註 : 暗指天生如此 , 若不具此基因與腦結構 , 根本不要去想當籃球員 You, of course, as a scientist, are well aware that the brain changes with use...indeed quite dramatically. Those parts responsible for an activity get larger over time, and there are specific parts of the brain that are more utilized in basketball playing. 你若是一個科學家, 當然會知道到腦部結構隨著長時間的使用而強化發達 , 當籃球打得越多(後天) , 則處理這方面訊息的腦結構越發達 Now, as a scientist, you will not lie about this fact, if asked (since you will not be), but neither will you go out of your way to offer the truth. The truth, after all, would put an end to the worldwide media blitz accompanying the announcement of your findings. 現在 , 身為一個科學家 , 若被記者問起你的研究成果 , 一方面你當然不會故意說謊 , 但另一方面你也不會主動去澄清精準的真相. 真相會隨著突然性地媒體熱捧漸漸地失真扭曲. Gene Linkage Studies: "Associated With" Does Not Mean "Caused By" (基因連鎖研究 : “Ａ與Ｂ有關”不等於“Ａ導致Ｂ,或Ｂ導致Ａ”) Now, for the last phase, you find a small number of families of basketball players and compare them to some families of non-players. You have a hunch that of the innumerable genes likely to be associated with basketball playing (those for height, athleticism, and quick reflexes, for example), some will be located on the x-chromosome. 承續上段 , 你在比對籃球員家庭與非籃球員家庭後 , 會找到無數與籃球有關的基因(身高,體重,快速放鬆等等) , 有些會為位於性染色體上 You won't say these genes cause basketball playing because such a claim would be scientifically insupportable, but the public thinks "caused by" and "associated with" are synonymous. 你絕不會說這些基因 "導致" 打籃球行為 , 因為科學統計實驗設計上就是不支援這種說法 , 原本也並非要證明這件事 , 但公眾媒體會將 "有關" 誤解成 "導致" , 認為這兩個是同義詞 **譯者註 : 因為擁有同性戀基因而導致生來是同性戀 , 是錯誤的 After a few false starts, sure enough, you find what you are looking for: among the basketball-playing families, one particular cluster of genes is found more commonly. 再經過一段時間的研究錯誤與假說修正後 , 你會發現實際上在尋找的是一群在籃球員中較常見的基因 , 而非導致人進行籃球行為的原因. **譯者註 : 找到與擅長於打籃球的基因 , 不代表它們導致人變成籃球員因果關係被過度推論一直是關聯性研究的潛在問題 With a Little Help from the Media(媒體提供的小幫助) Now, it happens that you have some sympathizers at National People's Radio, and they were long ago quietly informed of your research. They want people to come around to certain beliefs, too. So, as soon as your work hits the press, they are on the air: "Researchers are hot on the trail of the Basketball Gene. In an article to be published tomorrow in Sports Science..." 現在 , 你在空中(以前指廣播,現在可泛指網路與公眾媒體) , 擁有一些同情支持者(可在廣播中說話的人,如DJ) , 而他們長期安靜的關注你的研究 , 他們想要人們對你的研究有所信服. 所以一旦記者採訪你與討論你的研究成果(小規模訊息) , 他們就在廣播中說: "研究者熱門地找尋籃球基因的線索,明天即將在運動科學期刊發表…"(幫忙擴大能見度) **譯者註 : 這段的意思是說同性戀社運家會幫忙造勢 Commentators pontificate about the enormous public-policy implications of this superb piece of science. Two weeks later, there it is again, on the cover of the major national newsweekly: "Basketball Gene?" 評論者(名嘴)張揚與武斷地表示這個有力研究將會影響無數的公共政策. 兩週後 , 再一次在國家級的新聞週刊封面故事又看到了這樣的標題 ,“籃球基因?” Now what is wrong with this scenario? It is simple: of course basketball playing is associated with certain genes; of course it is heritable. But it is those intermediate physiological traits muscle strength, speed, agility, reflex speed, height, etc.-which are themselves directly inherited. Those are the traits that make it likely one will be able to, and will want to, play basketball. 但現在到底是哪裡出了問題? 這很簡單 : 當然籃球運動與某些基因有關, 某些基因自然是可遺傳的 , 但這些只是一些側面幫助的間接因子 , 如肌力 , 速度 , 敏捷 , 放鬆耗費時間 , 身高等 , 這些確實是遺傳 , 這些因子讓人有能力打好籃球 , 然後或許間接變成自發地想打籃球 , 但並非直接讓人想打籃球 In the case of homosexuality, the inherited traits that are more common among male homosexuals might include a greater than average tendency to anxiety, shyness, sensitivity, intelligence, and aesthetic abilities. But this is speculation. To date, researchers have not yet sought to identify these factors with scientific rigor. 在同性戀的狀況 , 普遍較可能出現的遺傳特徵 , 可能包括有焦慮 , 害羞 , 敏感 ,聰明 , 與高審美觀 , 但這些只是炒作 , 至今仍沒有具有足夠科學嚴謹度的研究來支持這些假說 What the majority of respected scientists now believe is that homosexuality is attributable to a combination of psychological, social, and biological factors. 目前主流的觀點將同性戀歸因於心理 , 社會與生物遺傳的多重因素組合 From the American Psychological Association (美國心理學中心) "Many scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors."{6} 許多科學家在接觸大量同性戀者後擁有一個共識 , 大多數人性別傾向在人生早期已成型 , 與生理 , 心理和社會因子有關 From "Gay Brain" Researcher Simon LeVay (腦研究學者) "At this point, the most widely held opinion [on causation of homosexuality] is that multiple factors play a role."{7} 如今最被廣泛接受的觀點 , 同性戀的起因與眾多因子同時有關 From Dennis McFadden, University of Texas neuroscientist (神經學者) "Any human behavior is going to be the result of complex intermingling of genetics and environment. It would be astonishing if it were not true for homosexuality."{8} 任何人類行為都是遺傳與環境複雜交織而成. 若同性戀行為不依循此道理 , 將會令人非常震驚. From Sociologist Steven Goldberg (社會學家) "I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors."{9} As we have seen, there is no evidence that homosexuality is simply "genetic"--and none of the research itself claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public. 我確定研究同性戀領域的所有人 , 都認同環境因子對同性戀的生成肯定有影響. 沒有證據證明同性戀僅僅只受到遺傳因子影響 , 也沒有任何研究會這樣陳述 , 只有記者與一些研究者在公開演講時會這樣說. ------------------------------------------------------------- Endnotes (Reference) {1} Mann, C. Genes and behavior. Science 264:1687 (1994). {2} Billings, P. and Beckwith, J. Technology Review, July, 1993. p. 60. {3} Mann, C. op. cit. pp. 1686-1689. {4} "New Evidence of a 'Gay Gene'," by Anastasia Toufexis, Time, November 13, 1995, vol. 146, Issue 20, p. 95. {5} Hamer, D. H., et al. Response to Risch, N., et al., "Male Sexual Orientation and Genetic Evidence," Science 262 (1993), pp. 2063-65. {6} The American Psychological Association's pamphlet, "Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality." {7} LeVay, Simon (1996). Queer Science, MIT Press. {8} "Scientists Challenge Notion that Homosexuality's a Matter of Choice," The Charlotte Observer, August 9, 1998. {9} Goldberg, Steven (1994). When Wish Replaces Thought: Why So Much of What You Believe is False. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books. The above article was adapted from two sources: a paper entitled, "The Gay Gene?" by Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., in The Journal of Human Sexuality, 1996, available by calling (972) 713-7130; and past issues of the National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) Bulletin. For an in-depth discussion of homosexuality and genetics, consult Dr. Satinover's 1996 book, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, published by Hamewith/Baker Books. -- 統計是我栽模型是我開要想套此模留下專利財 -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 140.113.239.247

推

HotAirFlow

08/14 17:08, , 1^F

08/14 17:08, 1^F

→

HotAirFlow

08/14 17:08, , 2^F

08/14 17:08, 2^F

→

HotAirFlow

08/14 17:09, , 3^F

08/14 17:09, 3^F