the sexual orientation of fruit flies

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Irvine511

Blue Crack Supplier
Joined
Dec 4, 2003
Messages
34,521
Location
the West Coast
fascinating, on many levels.



June 3, 2005
For Fruit Flies, Gene Shift Tilts Sex Orientation
By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL,
International Herald Tribune

When the genetically altered fruit fly was released into the observation chamber, it did what these breeders par excellence tend to do. It pursued a waiting virgin female. It gently tapped the girl with its leg, played her a song (using wings as instruments) and, only then, dared to lick her - all part of standard fruit fly seduction.

The observing scientist looked with disbelief at the show, for the suitor in this case was not a male, but a female that researchers had artificially endowed with a single male-type gene.

That one gene, the researchers are announcing today in the journal Cell, is apparently by itself enough to create patterns of sexual behavior - a kind of master sexual gene that normally exists in two distinct male and female variants.

In a series of experiments, the researchers found that females given the male variant of the gene acted exactly like males in courtship, madly pursuing other females. Males that were artificially given the female version of the gene became more passive and turned their sexual attention to other males.

"We have shown that a single gene in the fruit fly is sufficient to determine all aspects of the flies' sexual orientation and behavior," said the paper's lead author, Dr. Barry Dickson, senior scientist at the Institute of Molecular Biotechnology at the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna. "It's very surprising.

"What it tells us is that instinctive behaviors can be specified by genetic programs, just like the morphologic development of an organ or a nose."

The results are certain to prove influential in debates about whether genes or environment determine who we are, how we act and, especially, our sexual orientation, although it is not clear now if there is a similar master sexual gene for humans.

Still, experts said they were both awed and shocked by the findings. "The results are so clean and compelling, the whole field of the genetic roots of behavior is moved forward tremendously by this work," said Dr. Michael Weiss, chairman of the department of biochemistry at Case Western Reserve University. "Hopefully this will take the discussion about sexual preferences out of the realm of morality and put it in the realm of science."

He added: "I never chose to be heterosexual; it just happened. But humans are complicated. With the flies we can see in a simple and elegant way how a gene can influence and determine behavior."

The finding supports scientific evidence accumulating over the past decade that sexual orientation may be innately programmed into the brains of men and women. Equally intriguing, the researchers say, is the possibility that a number of behaviors - hitting back when feeling threatened, fleeing when scared or laughing when amused - may also be programmed into human brains, a product of genetic heritage.

"This is a first - a superb demonstration that a single gene can serve as a switch for complex behaviors," said Dr. Gero Miesenboeck, a professor of cell biology at Yale.

Dr. Dickson, the lead author, said he ran into the laboratory when an assistant called him on a Sunday night with the results. "This really makes you think about how much of our behavior, perhaps especially sexual behaviors, has a strong genetic component," he said.

All the researchers cautioned that any of these wired behaviors set by master genes will probably be modified by experience. Though male fruit flies are programmed to pursue females, Dr. Dickson said, those that are frequently rejected over time become less aggressive in their mating behavior.

When a normal male fruit fly is introduced to a virgin female, they almost immediately begin foreplay and then copulate for 20 minutes. In fact, Dr. Dickson and his co-author, Dr. Ebru Demir of the Institute of Molecular Biotechnology, specifically chose to look for the genetic basis of fly sexual behavior precisely because it seemed so strong and instinctive and, therefore, predictable.

Scientists have known for several years that the master sexual gene, known as fru, was central to mating, coordinating a network of neurons that were involved in the male fly's courtship ritual. Last year, Dr. Bruce Baker of Stanford University discovered that the mating circuit controlled by the gene involved 60 nerve cells and that if any of these were damaged or destroyed by the scientists, the animal could not mate properly. Both male and female flies have the same genetic material as well as the neural circuitry required for the mating ritual, but different parts of the genes are turned on in the two sexes. But no one dreamed that simply activating the normally dormant male portion of the gene in a female fly could cause a genetic female to display the whole elaborate panoply of male fruit fly foreplay.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/03/science/03cell.html?hp
 
Fruit flies are instruments of the devil and promote an anti-Biblical agenda. They must not be allowed near our youth. :wink:
 
Irvine511 said:
It pursued a waiting virgin female. It gently tapped the girl with its leg, played her a song and, only then, dared to lick her - all part of standard fruit fly seduction.

Sounds much like a Saturday night at most universities.
 
If sexuality can be partly determined by genetics should we give parents the option of minimising the risk that their children could be gay?
 
A_Wanderer said:
If sexuality can be partly determined by genetics should we give parents the option of minimising the risk that their children could be gay?



should we do the same with potential red heads and left-handers?
 
Yes. Improving the human race with genetic engineering seems fine, although in the ultimate conclusion it is a moot point because sexual reproduction would be surpassed.
 
A_Wanderer said:
If sexuality can be partly determined by genetics should we give parents the option of minimising the risk that their children could be gay?

No, the opposite. The world is vastly overpopulated, and accordingly we should encourage parents to have gay children.


P.S. Helpful hint: read Brave New World again.
 
The world isn't overpopulated with rich people, it is the poor who overpopulate ~ given better standards of hygene and education that could change.

I do not think that using technology to better mankinds will create a dystopia.
 
A_Wanderer said:
If sexuality can be partly determined by genetics should we give parents the option of minimising the risk that their children could be gay?

If we're going down the social engineering route, I assume we would have to choose carefully who would be allowed to be parents.

In general, religious fundamentalists tend to be anti-gay. They also tend to be of below-average intelligence.

I am a little bit surprised that these points have passed you by.
 
A_Wanderer said:
The world isn't overpopulated with rich people, it is the poor who overpopulate ~ given better standards of hygene and education that could change.

I do not think that using technology to better mankinds will create a dystopia.

Yes, and gays tend to be disproportionately wealthy. Go figure.

I agree that technology to better mankind will not (necessarily) create a dystopia.
 
The genetic factors on intelligence are a lot more complex. Religion itself may be the strong retrograde force but by potential a religious fundamentalist can be just as intelligent as you or I.

Secondly there would not be choosing of who would be allowed to be parents, I am not advocating social darwinism.

Giving options to parents over their childs genetic predispositions does not seem like a bad thing.

Creating a post-human society is also not necessarily a bad thing.
 
A_Wanderer said:
The world isn't overpopulated with rich people

Actually, I'd disagree with that. The world is indeed overpopulated with rich people.

Dynastic wealth has given rise to many of the world's problems.
 
financeguy said:


Yes, and gays tend to be disproportionately wealthy. Go figure.
And I disagree, the prevailence of genetic factors in homosexuality are probably spread all through the human race. The social and cultural factors regarding that behaviour are however more specific. A well to do city dwelling westerner could openly be homosexual a lot easier than someone in say Saudi Arabia.

There is no gay gene, it seems to be multiple factors and even then it gives more of a predisposition to such behaviour. Nature versus nurture.
 
i think anyone who would consider aborting a fetus that has the genetic potential to be gay probably wouldn't believe that anyone is born gay to begin with, they are just defective heterosexuals because they had an overprotective mother and a daddy who wouldn't play catch with them.

and wouldn't this post an interesting dilemma for the pro-life/anti-choice movement which is often -- though certianly not always -- anti-gay.

the only good gay is an aborted gay?
 
Last edited:
A_Wanderer said:
The genetic factors on intelligence are a lot more complex. Religion itself may be the strong retrograde force but by potential a religious fundamentalist can be just as intelligent as you or I.

Secondly there would not be choosing of who would be allowed to be parents, I am not advocating social darwinism.

Giving options to parents over their childs genetic predispositions does not seem like a bad thing.

Creating a post-human society is also not necessarily a bad thing.

(1) "By potential a religious fundamentalist can be just as intelligent as you or I" - I would have to respectfully disagree on that.

(2) I would argue that social darwinisim is by no means bad.

(3) I agree, but I would argue that it depends that society has the right to decide in what parents' hands such choices are placed. If that makes me an elitist, so be it.

(4) I entirely agree.
 
financeguy said:


Yes, and gays tend to be disproportionately wealthy. Go figure.



not quite -- out, urban gay men tend to be disproportionately wealthy. they also tend to be educated, self-confident, and probably as a result of coming to terms with being gay and having the strength to live in a society that is unfriendly if not outright hostile, they are savvy as well.

poor gay people you don't see as much of, but they exist.
 
A_Wanderer said:
But you forget that they hate the sin and not the sinner.


the zygote has yet to sin. how is the potential to be gay, which is by definition to sin, any different than the potential to be a mass murderer? is there a sociopath gene?

and they care more about zygotes than about inmates on death row.

are gay zygotes less worthy of fanatical protection than straight zygotes?
 
A_Wanderer said:
Yes. Improving the human race with genetic engineering seems fine.........

"And while we're at it, lets forbid the undesirable to reproduce--in fact, let's make sure that they can't possibly reproduce by enforcing mandatory sterilization for those who don't measure up, like the mentally, emotionally, or racially unacceptable.

"Well, hell, why bother with that? We'd just have a bunch of non-breeders cluttering up the landscape. Why don't we just kill them all? If we can have production lines to make thing, why can't we have production lines to get rid of things--like undesirable people?

"You see, we just build an airtight building, round them up, shove them in there, lock the doors, and....."

A_Wanderer, that thinking leads to madness. Go take another look at the history books. They used to call it 'eugenics'. They used to call the select few the master race. They used to built gas chambers. And still we mourn....

btw, do you think people are ever going to stop accidentally having babies? they introduced the pill decades ago, but there are still a hell of a lot of unplanned pregnancies. and if you think that anybody is ever going to stop having sex, you're either a virgin or you are not considering the reality...people like to screw.
 
1) Why? If I were to take Jerry Falwell and Stephen J. Gould clones and raise them in an identical environment without religious fundamentalism and with a solid system for education do you think that they would fare vastly differently?

2) Social Darwinism is itself a bad idea, it treats things born of economic conditions as evolutionary ills, it is 19th Century pseudoscience used to justify a laissez faire approach to society
 
should people who would consider abortion on the basis of potential intelligence or undesireable sexual orientation be allowed to be parents?

seems like the kid, bred for perfection though he may be, is going to turn out like shit with such nasty, self-absorbed, soulless parents.
 
Last edited:
Irvine511 said:
should people who would consider abortion on the basis of potential intelligence or undesireable sexual orientation be allowed to be parents?

seems like the kid, bread for perfection though he may be, is going to turn out like shit with such nasty, self-absorbed, soulless parents.

:up:
 
echo0001 said:

A_Wanderer, that thinking leads to madness. Go take another look at the history books. They used to call it 'eugenics'. They used to call the select few the master race. They used to built gas chambers. And still we mourn....

btw, do you think people are ever going to stop accidentally having babies? they introduced the pill decades ago, but there are still a hell of a lot of unplanned pregnancies. and if you think that anybody is ever going to stop having sex, you're either a virgin or you are not considering the reality...people like to screw.
Oh please, the needless Nazi comparisons add nothing to the conversation, this has nothing to do with creating a master race to rule over the rest. That is like me saying that if you advocate a national healthcare service then you will want to recreate the killing fields because that line of thinking leads to communism.

No, I do not think that people are going to stop having sex, but I think that some when they choose to have kids would be willing to give their child every possible advantage.
 
A_Wanderer said:

2) Social Darwinism is itself a bad idea, it treats things born of economic conditions as evolutionary ills, it is 19th Century pseudoscience used to justify a laissez faire approach to society

No, if one has the point of view (as I do) that the Earth is already vastly overpopulated, then one can very legitimately argue in favour of social darwinism.
 
Irvine511 said:
should people who would consider abortion on the basis of potential intelligence or undesireable sexual orientation be allowed to be parents?

seems like the kid, bred for perfection though he may be, is going to turn out like shit with such nasty, self-absorbed, soulless parents.
No they should not, there can be reasons for abortion but the roll of the sexual dice is not one of them.
 
i think this, then, poses an interesting question for parents or parents-to-be out there: if you knew your child had a strong genetic disposition (for lack of better word ... forgive me, i majored in English not Biology), would you raise him/her any differently? this doesn't have to be a negative thing ... would you take him to movies that had positive gay role models? would you explain sex as "when two people love each other very much and they want to show each other how much they love each other ..." or when asked, "where do babies come from?" would you reply, "China, or sometimes Romania"?
 
financeguy said:


No, if one has the point of view (as I do) that the Earth is already vastly overpopulated, then one can very legitimately argue in favour of social darwinism.
It is (generally) wrong to have a system that prevents certain people from reproducing.

If you have a problem with overpopulation you do not do it by culling humanity or sterilising those that some outside force considers unfit. You adress the issues of poverty and suffering. The population will eventually find it's own ideal state again.
 
Back
Top Bottom