A Separate Creation: how biology makes us gay

Burr, Chandler

ISBN 10: 0593035526 / ISBN 13: 9780593035528

Published by Bantam, London, 1996

About this Item

ix, 354p., notes, glossary, index, toning to text block common to British books of the period, stain on fore-edge and remainder mark bottom edge, good first UK edition in boards and unclipped dj. On the supposed Gay Gene. Seller Inventory # 247599

Bibliographic Details

Title: A Separate Creation: how biology makes us gay

Publisher: Bantam, London

Publication Date: 1996

Binding: Hardcover

Dust Jacket Condition: Dust Jacket Included

Edition: 1st Edition

About this title

Synopsis:

In 1993 American scientists claimed they had discovered a gay gene. Sexual orientation it seems, is not a choice, disease or faddish whim but a fundamental biological part of who we are. This book examines this claim, looking at the laboratories where researchers are using incredible new technologies to discover what makes us gay of straight. From studies of male rats that ovulate and a species of African animal where the female has a penis, to the political storm surrounding the claim of a gay gene, from a silicon chip of human DNA that could determine the sexual orientation of a foetus in the womb, to a working theory that homosexuality is a genetic/biological condition that is treatable with an antibiotic, the book explores this often ethically ambiguous territory.

Review:

If there is one lesson to be taken away from reading this report on "the search for the biological origins of sexual orientation," it's that science at its best is always an ongoing process. Combining profiles of the top researchers of sexual orientation with straightforward explanations of the results of their experiments in neurobiology, genetics, and other fields, Burr provides a fascinating glimpse of men and women for whom science is not the pursuit of definitive answers about the way things are, but the motivation for constant questions. He also gives them a voice to vent frustration at the ways their research has been misrepresented by non-scientists trying to fit objective data into subjective moral and ethical arguments.