Today's headline: another study on gay sheep. My favorite line is this: "First the scientists watched the sheep to be sure of their behavior — something that cannot be done with humans. Then they took apart their brains." I would personally like to see a study done on that pigeon that tried to court me in Australia (I have video). A pigeon who'd get with anything might shed light on the affinity that certain farm boys seem to have for sheep.

I've noticed that studies on gay animals are a hot-button issue for some people. To me these are simply a curiosity. As far as I can tell, there are only three potential reasons to be offended by this sort of study: 1) you resent any basic research project because the money could be better spent, or 2) you are opposed to animal research, or 3) you are worried about the political motivations/ramifications of the research. I acknowledge that the first two might be fair objections (although I don't usually sympathize with those views). But the third type of objection always troubles me.

To me these studies are no different from physiological studies concerning ingestive behavior, emotional response, or any other class of behavior. It's simply a study. To me it is a curiosity. Any moral aspect must be layered on top of it. In fact, any moral conclusion based on this kind of study is probably fallacious. Thus I find it quite offensive to suggest that this sort of study should not take place simply because someone might use it as part of a bad argument. Ignorance is not the solution to ignorance. As an analogy, I would be similarly offended if someone suggested that nuclear physics is evil because it allows us to build nuclear weapons. Or that pullies and levers are evil because they allow us to build catapults. Or that fire is evil because it enables arsonists.

If, on the other hand, someone looked into one of these studies and found that its experimental setup had been biased, or its results misrepresented, in the interests of some political conclusion, then that revelation would be more interesting than the study itself. It's always exciting to ferret out a fraud. Like in the classic DEA-funded studies on marijuana use when they exposed monkeys to marijuana smoke. They found brain damage similar to that caused by asphyxiation and blamed it on the pot. The trick was that they didn't give the monkeys any oxygen with their pot.

So scientific fraud does happen for political gain. But it isn't fair to judge "these studies" as a class. Each study must be evaluated on its own merits. The possible existence of a fraud doesn't undermine the field as a whole.