I think we can relax a bit about this. The questions we need to ask are: What pressures are going to drive the medical research establishment and drug developers towards developing a product that will "de-gay" your child in utero? And what forces will hold them back?

Sure, if thousands and thousands of parents want to ensure that their kid doesn't turn out to be gay, some stupid company might try to develop diagnostics and treatment for this "problem." (Although most research scientists, the folks with the PhDs who would actually do the work, are screaming liberals and wouldn't touch this work with a ten-foot pole). Still, these companies will need to develop two things: a diagnostic test that says your kid is at risk of turning gay, and a treatment for the "at-risk" kids that keeps them from turning gay. Those things are both years and years away, are riddled with technical challenges, and one doesn't make sense without the other. Even if you had a diagnostic and an anti-gay drug this very minute, you wouldn't get your results at least until the first kids hit puberty-- at least 15 years away. So the development time we're talking about is not negligible.

The second question: what will stop companies from trying to develop these products? The answer is medical ethics, regulatory process, and human nature. This diagnostic and treatment would have to be tested *in humans* before it could be widely deployed, and to test a new drug in humans you need to prove that you have ample evidence that the drug will do more good than harm. Would you participate in a medical trial, or would a hospital sponsor a clinical trial, studying the effects of amputation for treatment of a hangnail? I didn't think so. Similarly, would parents participate in a trial that might sterilize their child, or cause her to grow an extra limb, just to reduce the risk of that child being gay? And would a company spend tens of millions of dollars on a product that would have to be tested in pregnant women, and only in pregnant women, with all the attendant legal risks? Again, I don't think so.

Development of these products would be too risky for too little benefit. So with all due respect to WIlliam Saleten, I think this isn't going to happen any time soon.

What would such treatment cost?

Any Pharma that would market such a treatment would have to ask a fortune for the treatment since the risk of lawsuit would be enormous.

Would you really spend 5,000 dollars to have a not gay child? 10,000?

Sorry, but having a gay kid isn't that bad!

jeecat:

You don't seem to understand the issue. This is not a "new drug" that would be needed. It's just androgens, aka male hormones. Already widely available in every possible form.

If it is conclusively determined that pre-natal androgen exposure determines sexuality, then there is absolutely nothing that could be done to prevent sexual-orientation screening. It would be a very simple detection and a very simple fix.

Even if drugs aren't being used to affect a baby's sexuality, the *idea* of it happening is still powerful enough to affect the debate. What happens when people start saying that being gay is a preventable affliction?

If they say there's no need to support gay rights because we'll soon have a "cure," how many people will listen?

Jeecat,

To say that there's anything "simple" about determining, decreasing or increasing the amount of hormones, male or otherwise, in a pregnant woman's body boggles the mind. Moreover, to imagine that one can dramatically alter the natural fetal environment without affecting a whole host of other things besides sexuality (size, intelligence, personality) is also difficult to believe.

"This little lady here has only a wee bit of androgens in her body, so she's probably going to give birth to a lumberjack... while this little lady here is awash in them, so 'Hello, Nancy!'"

Actually, Firstinlastout, it's NOT simple. (Take it from me-- I'm a scientist and a drug developer ;-).) You couldn't just "give androgens" (eg testosterone) to a pregnant woman-- these have been shown to cause reproductive organ birth defects AND they increase the risk of miscarriage. Maybe there's some dose (a teeny tiny dose) where it would make a kid not gay and not cause a miscarriage-- but what IS that dose? And what if that same dose made kids not gay, but also gave some percentage (even 0.01%) abnormal genitals? And how many pregnant women would have to be dosed until they found the right dose that did no harm but prevented gay people from being born? This is a living, breathing nightmare for drug companies-- and crazy right-wing fundy doctors who hate gay people also hate abortion, so they're not going to be dosing women with androgens just for gay prevention, either.

What a company would have to do is develop some kind of new molecule that was an androgen only in some tissue types (eg in the fetus), somewhat like tamoxifen, which is a SERM (Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulator)-- but again, companies don't like to do studies where a) they have to do experiments on pregnant women, and b) it takes 15-20 years before you even get a single result. Pain in the ass, not economically feasible, and certainly not ethically approvable by any medical ethics board anywhere where they have the ability and funds to do this work.

I agree with you, Arashi. (The names are above the posts, I think)

jeccat

ok, I stand corrected, maybe it's not that simple. But it seems it would be at least relatively simple, meaning, at least they know what it would take it get it working, they just need to know dosage requirements and, like you said, possible modifications for selective application. The fact is, if they have found the root cause of homosexuality, it won't be that long before there is a "treament." I'm sure some over-zealous bigots might even forgo safety mechanisms and make themselves test dummies. I agree, it could be 15 years or more, but that is a very short time in terms of the advancement of medical treatments.

Assuming it's possible, it's going to take far more than 15 years to be commonly available. It's difficult to get even straight forward medications through the approval process, much less a medication that a pregnant woman is supposed to take to drastically change her child. This is even more true when not using it doesn't risk her life or the life of her child.

Given the increased acceptance of homosexuality, chances are very few people would care about it when it did come along. Do you think a company is going to want to develop a product with the risk that it will be irrelevant? I don't.

Thanks Physicsgirl. That's what I was trying to say-- you said it better ;-).

Oh, it's very possible and we all know it. Look, if they tie homosexuality to a certain level of androgen in the womb, say level X, whereas level Y is normal, it is extremely easy to monitor the woman throughout pregnancy and give her hormone injections to bring her up to level Y. You don't need to rev up the hormones to some level that is dangerous to the mother or child, you just have to bring them up to normal levels. Will it ensure heterosexuality? Probably not, but it would cut the chances of the child being gay drastically.

As for the gay rights movement bringing acceptance, yes, people accept gays, but most sane people know that being gay is more difficult than being straight regardless of society's acceptance. Life is harder growing up and knowing you are different: I'm gay, take it from me! If this treatment become available and I were a parent, I don't know that I would use it, but I would seriously consider it. I think people who dismiss this out of hand are the ones who need to get their heads examined. Would you really put your liberal value system above your child's well-being? Remember this isn't hurting the child, only making him straight.

People want what's best for their kids, and privately, most people think heterosexuality is part of that.

Good grief, Firstinlastout, don't you remember the DES tragedy? I can assure you, the drug companies and medical researchers do. Look it up on Wikipedia. There has long been extreme reluctance to test drugs on pregnant women; the liability risks are boundless. A few babies born with malformed genitals would lead to howling mobs with flaming torches.

Thank you for injecting a dose of reason and reality into this conversation. Unfortunately, the fact that this conversation is taking place at all is proof of how rarely reason and reality matter, particularly when it comes to sexuality.

nope, never heard of it.

So are you saying a pregnant woman shouldn't have the right to inject something into her own body if she choses? It's her body. Why would there be "howling mobs with flaming torches" over what someone else chose to do to their child and their body?

mzappala:

Remember this isn't hurting the child, only making him straight.

Making people straight is hurting them. Gay people are much happier and well-adjusted. Haven't you seen will and grace? Geez, get with the times man!