NARTH Scientific Advisory Committee members Johanna Tabin, Ph.D., and Joseph Berger, M.D., have reviewed Mustanski's 2005 study and found significant flaws in it.
Dr. Johanna Tabin has observed of Mustanki's study:
That 60% of their genes overlap is no surprise. We overlap as a species with chimpanzees and gorillas to much greater extents. The point is that with such complexity as the overlap in non-sexual genes, we are down to understanding the importance of psychological factors in the development of individual personality.
As a society that respects the civil rights of our citizens, we can agree with Stonewall that the civil rights of people who may be homosexual should be protected. On the other hand, the people who are homosexual should act like ordinary citizens. It is not good manners, to say the least, to let one's preoccupation with one's sexuality dominate most of one's public behavior. The peculiar glamorization of homosexuality in our current culture is a growing problem, especially for our young.
Recognition that homosexuality is neither a conscious choice nor the outcome of genetic fate might lead to greater rationality about the subject among both the majority of persons and the small minority who are homosexual.
Dr. Joseph Berger has noted:
First, the sample size [in Mustanki's study] is VERY small. It is far too small to draw any such conclusions about human behavior.
Second, the supposed difference from random behavior is far too small in biological terms -- even if it were "significant" statistically, to warrant any conclusions about inheritance of a human behavior.
Third, the whole matter of genetics regarding human behavior is extremely debatable, and I don't believe that any human behavior has been scientifically legitimately demonstrated to be genetic in origin. I think familial passage is usually a far more rational explanation.
Fourth, the method of "linkage" that is championed by the geneticists is questionable regarding applying it to human behavior. Essentially, linkage is based upon the notion that if you have a known inherited characteristic such as eye color or blood group, and a trait you are examining, then if you can find areas on a chromosome that seem to be identical in enough people from a sample, you have demonstrated that the trait is also inherited genetically. I think there is too much in the way of assumptions in that in terms of applying it to behavior -- as opposed to restricting it to physical traits.
Fifth, following the above, nobody has convincingly demonstrated that there is any location on any human chromosome and/or any combination of amino acids that is "responsible" for so-called sexual orientation.
Sixth, one of the great fallacies of this whole misapplication of genetics to human behavior can be demonstrated by looking at religion. In Saudi Arabia, is Islam transmitted genetically? After all, there is a 100% concordance rate, isn't there? Even for unrelated people, let alone sibs, twins, etc, etc. In certain South American countries is Catholicism inherited genetically, where there is a 100% concordance rate? Why not?
Well everyone "knows" the answer "why not," don't they? Because we know that religion is a matter of personal choice, a behavior, not an in-born trait, and most often passed from parents to children, but familially, not genetically.
For those of us who are psychiatrists and who are not easily taken in by propaganda, the claims for genetic transmission of depression do NOT impress us, the claims for genetic transmission of alcoholism do NOT impress us. With regard to alcoholism there is one legitimate finding, and that is that certain people of Asiatic background lack an enzyme that helps breakdown alcohol, with the outcome that they experience a severe burning sensation in their chest after even a modest amount of alcohol. That enzyme deficiency is inherited. But what this means is that, if anything, there is a slight genetic predisposition in a certain special population that protects against alcoholism, because they don't drink so that they can avoid that very unpleasant sensation.
I am sure others can outline even more scientific objections to such claims. I think that the comments of the gay activists focusing on the tolerance' indicates that even they no longer take such claims seriously.
In my opinion, it is irresponsible journalism for media outlets to publicize such dubious claims based upon tiny population samples.
