The GenderSci Lab’s Letter in Science: Context and Further Commentary on GWAS Studies of Same-Sex Sexuality

In late August 2019, Science published the results of the largest genome-wide association study (GWAS) to date identifying genes associated with human sexuality. The study claimed that relatively few genes were associated with same-sex sexual behavior and that while any one of these genes accounted for <1% of the variation in sexual behavior, together the genes accounted for 8%-25% of the variation.  

Coming from the prestigious Broad Institute, this publication received widespread media coverage. Some journalists focused on the finding that, for any individual, genes can’t predict whether someone is gay. Conservative corners of the internet suggested the lack of strong genetic contribution to same-sex sexuality suggested that conversion therapy was appropriate. At least one company began offering a “How Gay are You” DNA test. The study also provoked an immediate response from within the scientific community, with many researchers raising the question of whether this study should have even been done. 

Today [Dec. 20, 2019], Science published two Letters to the Editor offering critical discussion of the original paper, with a response from the authors.  The GenderSci Lab’s letter, “Genome Studies Must Account for History,” points out that the study sample (cis, white people of English and American descent) is socially and historically-situated. 

For example, many of these individuals have lived through the legalization of same-sex relationships. Simply legalizing same-sex marriage is known to change the prevalence of reporting of sexual orientation. Many middle-aged and older individuals are from communities decimated by the AIDS epidemic. Neither of these massive events affecting the population and the prevalence of same-sex behavior was considered in this work. We are concerned that studies of the genetics of same-sex sexuality on such shaky methodologically grounds may do harm to LGBTQ+ communities that will likely be difficult to repair. 

To accompany our letter, today we feature three essays by the GenderSci Lab that develop our arguments in the Science Letter in further detail.

In A Haunted GWAS: The Missing Historical and Social Context in the “Gay Gene” Study, we explore how a changing legal landscape and the history of the AIDS epidemic have influenced the populations sampled for this study.

Ethical oversight of GWAS studies: Are We Doing Enough to Protect Communities? explores why this study was exempt from the IRB approval process and suggests GWAS scientists look to how indigenous communities have responded to community-based ethical harms for further guidance on how to prevent harm.

Finally, in The Complex Political Terrain of "Born this Way" in the Era of Big Data Genomics, we further consider the political ramifications of such work in our current sociolegal atmosphere.