Hi Udo,
Jim Newman here

You and I have had numerous discussions via email.
In fact, you emailed me to let me know that the flawed Sunday Times piece came out - which has since been pulled by the paper. (thanks for the heads up by the way) I would have gladly sent you the reply had you asked at any time - you will find it below.

I have to ask one question that really puzzles me. PETA asked you to be part of their campaign and you agreed. Yet you state here that their claims are false (PETA has repeatedly claimed that the research is homophobic, you don’t agree) They have also made outright blatant claim that we plan to “cure humans of ther homosexual tendancies” That was a direct quote from PETA. I’ll email you the source document if you like.

As an ethicist don’t you have concerns about allying with PETA and aiding in their deception?

I ‘m not being nasty….It just really puzzles me how you can be part of something that you know to be flawed and still maintain PETA as your partner.

Anyways - here’s the response below - thanks for your input - Jim
—-
Dear friend,
I recently became aware of PETA’s concerns about this research. Thank you
for this chance to respond.
Let me start by saying the information you have received from PETA is
incorrect. We have contacted PETA repeatedly and asked them to correct their
information. However, they have refused to do so despite the facts we have
shared with them.
The study that PETA urged you to write me about is indeed based in sheep.
However, it is not being done to “cure homosexuality.” Homosexuality is not
a disease. I join you and our researchers in being personally offended by
anyone who suggests that the research is based in intolerance.
In reality, the research is being conducted to further understanding of the
biological factors involved in partner preference.  For more information
about this research and related studies at other universities, I urge you to
read this story from the Seattle Times:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002340883_gayscience19m.html
In fact, over the years, our researchers have been contacted by several gay
and lesbian groups who appreciate our scientific results which support their
beliefs that homosexuality is genetic and biological, not a choice.
As for the animals in this study we care deeply about them and they are
treated ethically. All our research is conducted under the strict rules of
the Animal Welfare Act and National Institutes of Health guidelines. It was
funded by the federal government only after being reviewed by and approved
top scientists in the field. In addition, panels of experts at both
universities, which include members of the public and trained veterinarians,
approved the research before it was allowed to commence and OHSU animal care
is overseen by the US Department of Agriculture and AAALAC.
Thank you for the chance to respond. I also ask that you please join us in
contacting PETA at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) and ask that they correct their information
about this research.
Thank you,

As one of the over 20,000 protesters who are supposed to have received replies to their protest letters, may I point out that I am yet to receive a reply from OHSU. I do think that considering the world’s health needs a 5-year (and counting) research project on same sex oriented sheep amounts to a frivolous waste of health research resources. That sheep is killed in order to answer a research question that will not yield any health benefits for either humans or animals is disconcerting and quite unacceptable. Last but not least, while I fully accept Dr Roselli’s protestation to be not a bigoted homophobe, I can’t see how this research will do anything other than further the agenda of exactly such people. Indeed, a brief search for ‘gay sheep’ in internet newsgroups and blog will reveal that his work received thunderous applause exactly from that sort of audience.

Professor Udo Schuklenk, PhD
Chair in Ethics in Public Policy and Corporate Governance
Glasgow Caledonian University

I agree with Shalin and Eleanore.  It’s so, well, 20th century to be experimenting on animals.  And so 19th century to be looking into their sexual preferences—for any reason.  Leave everything gay be; they’re not bothering you.

to devalue the ethics and intelligence of gay rights campaigners everywhere. Congrats.

Baa Ram Ewe!
Baa Ram Ewe!

Jim Newman here from OHSU.

Shalin, thanks for responding. It gives us another chance to demonstrate how PETA put its false case together.

In fact - your posting demonstrates this nicely. You quote partial sentences from various documents over many years by different people. Of course, anyone who reviews the source of your quotes - the full documents - realizes that PETA is not telling the truth.

You even go to the length of suggesting that a footnote is a smoking gun.

Anyone who is interested in the subject should also read this piece in the Guardian
 
Gay sheep? Let’s get the facts straight
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience/story/0,,1989465,00.html

The piece examines how PETA’s false claims led to a story in the Sunday Times which is more science fiction than science.

The bigger issue is why study sexual preferences in sheep, unless eugenic implications are considered in the scientific response to a sample study.  If the manipulations of the animal’s hormones to produce different effects are not part of this experimentation, then why waste energy to employ this research.

So what purpose does such a study serve—humanity is not fearful of the demise of lamb chops or wool sweaters, and impregnation of less than willing ewes can now easily be accomplished.

Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU) experimenters Charles Roselli and Fred Stormshak have failed to address ethical issues pertaining to their gay sheep tests, and PETA will continue to scrutinize these experiments to ensure that both animal and human interests are protected and represented.

OHSU documents substantiate the fact that Roselli and Stormshak are conducting invasive and deadly tests on sheep in order “to know whether sexual preferences can be altered by manipulating the prenatal hormone environment, for instance by using drugs to prevent the actions of androgen in the fetal sheep brain.” In one of Stormshak’s peer-reviewed articles, he describes clearly his intent to offer estrogen “therapy” to MOR [male-oriented rams, or gay sheep] to “alter their sexual behavior to the point of being more like that of FOR [female-oriented rams, or heterosexual sheep].” Similar tests on rodents, which were referenced in a paper by Roselli, were condemned by the German Society for Sex Research as “openly toy[ing] with the idea of endocrinological euthanasia of homosexuality.”

Roselli and Stormshak claim that their results will help researchers in offering prenatal assistance to “affected” people suffering from various sexual conditions, such as intersexuality. However, not only has the utility of animal testing regarding this condition been rejected by the British Society for Paediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes, but there are already five U.S. government-funded clinical (non-animal) trials currently underway.

Animal experiments are not above public scrutiny, and scientists, bioethicists, and social groups have criticized these gay sheep experiments. PETA maintains that these tests are a waste of research monies; they are scientifically dubious, and ethically untenable. To learn more, visit StopAnimalTests.com.

Shalin Gala
Research Associate
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals