Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Explaining Same-Sex Sexual Behavior: The Stagnation of the Genetic and Evolutionary Research Programs

  • Article
  • Published:
Journal for General Philosophy of Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper is an attempt to reconstruct the history of genetic and evolutionary theories of same-sex sexual behavior using Imre Lakatos’ methodology of scientific research programs (MSRP). Although distinct, those two programs are complementary. Whereas the genetic program maintains that homosexuality is genetically inherited, the evolutionary program attempts to explain how such a gene, which apparently reduces the reproductive fitness of its homozygous carrier, is maintained in the population. This appraisal reveals that the two research programs have not been empirically progressive in the Lakatosian sense. I argue that this situation has arisen precisely because of inappropriate over-commitment to the respective hard cores of the two research programs. As adherence to such cores is essential for success in research programs, according to Lakatos, I argue that Lakatos’ account of science may be descriptively adequate but is normatively inadequate. I provide grounds for generalizing this case as follows: the MSRP may successfully capture the logic of axiomised sciences, such as physics, but applies poorly to most sciences, including biological and social sciences, which do not lend themselves to axiomatic organization.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. It might be objected that research into the causes of homosexuality is best understood not in terms of two parallel research programs, but in the context of one interactionist model. On this view homosexuality is a joint product of biological (genetic) and environmental factors. Some researchers such as Money (1988) and Byne and Parsons (1993) have called for such an interactionist approach. Others such as Hamer and Copeland have plainly stated that their research ‘favors an explanation based on genes rather than on the rearing environment’ (Hamer et al. 1993, 104). The truth of the matter is that at the moment we don’t have a robust interactionist research program that explicitly seeks to show how possessing certain genes provides the potential for homosexual orientation and what environmental conditions determine whether this potential will be realized.

  2. Lakatos and his followers maintain that what must be taken into account when locating the hard core of a research program are the heuristic principles that the working scientist adopted and followed in practice and not his or her psychological beliefs see Urbach (1974, 109); Clark (1976, 46). Although some researchers, as noted earlier, claim that sexual orientation is a joint product of biology (genes) and the environment, this belief is not reflected in the actual scientific practice. Indeed there are clear institutional boundaries such as journals and academic departments that keep the two research programs (i.e. biological and environmental) separate.

  3. By contrast, the positive heuristic of the environmental program directs the researcher to look for experiential and social-environmental factors that bring about differences in sexual orientation. Within this program three main theories can be distinguished: family dynamics, early sexual experience and childhood gender roles. These theories assume that at birth people have the same potential to become either heterosexual or homosexual. Of course, in order to have an effect on a person’s psyche, the environment must in the first place have an effect on his or her brain and in this special sense the environmental theories can also be said to be biological. For an evaluation of environmental theories of sexual orientation see Stein (1999, 229–257).

  4. For a detailed discussion of how Theo Lang revived Richard Goldschmidt’s intersexual theory of homosexuality see Dietrich (2000).

  5. Other external factors that may have contributed to the rejection of Kallman’s work include the fact that the general mood of the 1950’s through the 1970’s seemed to favor psychodynamic explanations of human behavior rather than biological explanations. Moreover, Kallman’s work coincided with Alfred Kinsey’s classic studies which favored environmental explanations of human male homosexuality see Diamant et al. (1995).

  6. Genetic markers are sequences of DNA that can be used to tell approximately where on a chromosome a particular gene is located. Using statistical methods, scientists are able to determine how close the marker is to the gene associated with the condition being studied. For a very insightful discussion of gene linkage methods see Teare and Barret (2005).

  7. Although the evolutionary program of homosexuality can be viewed as a research program in its own right, it is an integral part of the protective belt that surrounds the hard core of the genetic research program for it seeks to explain how the gay gene (which apparently reduces the reproductive success of the individual carrying it) is maintained in the population. Several attempts have been made to describe evolutionary theory in Lakatosian terms. See for example Ketelaar and Ellis (2000), Forster and Shapiro (2000) and Richardson (2007).

  8. Incidentally a study by Bogaert and Hershberger (1999) reported that homosexual men had larger penises, both in terms of length and girth than heterosexual men.

References

  • ACSF Investigators. (1992). AIDS and sexual behavior in France. Nature, 360, 407–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adriaens, P. R., & De Block, A. (2006). The evolution of social construction: The case of homosexuality. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 49(4), 570–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, G. E. (1997). The double-edged sword of genetic determinism: Social and political agendas in genetic studies of homosexuality, 1940–1994. In V. A. Rosario (Ed.), Science and homosexualities. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, J. M., & Pillard, R. C. (1991). A genetic study of male sexual orientation. Archives of General Psychiatry, 8, 1089–1096.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, A., & Weinberg, M. S. (1978). Homosexualities: A study of diversity among men and women. New York: Simon Shuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanchard, R. (2012). Fertility in the mothers of firstborn homosexual and heterosexual men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 21, 551–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blaug, M. (1976). Kuhn versus Lakatos or paradigms versus research programmes in the history of economics. In Spiro J. Latsis (Ed.), Method and appraisal in economics. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bobrow, D., & Bailey, M. J. (2001). Is male homosexuality maintained via kin selection? Evolution and Human Behavior, 22, 361–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bogaert, A. F., & Hershberger, S. (1999). The relation between sexual orientation and penile size. Archives of Sex Behavior, 28(3), 213–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byne, W., & Parsons, B. (1993). Human sexual orientation: The biologic theories appraised. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 228–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, P. (1976). Atomism versus thermodynamics. In C. Howson (Ed.), Method and appraisal in the physical sciences (pp. 41–105). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Curran, D., & Parr, D. (1957). Homosexuality: An analysis of 100 male cases in private practice. British Medical Journal, 5022, 797–801.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davison, K., Brierley, H., & Smith, C. (1971). A male monozygotic twinship discordant for homosexuality. British Journal of Psychiatry, 118, 675–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamant, L., & McAnulty, R. D. (Eds.). (1995). The psychology of sexual orientation, behavior, and identity: A handbook. Westport: Greenwood Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickemann, M. (1995). Wilson’s panchreston: The inclusive fitness hypothesis of sociobiology re-examined. Journal of Homosexuality, 28(1–2), 147–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietrich, R. M. (2000). Of moths and men: Theo Lang and the persistence of Richard Goldschmidt’s theory of homosexuality, 1916–1960. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 22(2), 219–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fausto-Sterling, A., & Balaban, E. (1993). Genetics and male sexual orientation (comment on Hamer et al., 1993). Science, 261, 1257.

  • Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000). Sexing the body: Gender politics and the construction of sexuality. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forster, M. R., & Shapiro, L. A. (2000). Prediction and accommodation in evolutionary psychology. Psychological Inquiry, 11(1), 31–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabriel, S. E., Brigman, K. N., Koller, B. H., & Boucher, R. C. (1994). Cystic fibrosis heterozygote resistance to cholera toxin in cystic fibrosis mouse. Science, 266, 107–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gadpaille, W. J. (1980). Cross-species and cross-cultural contributions to understanding homosexual activity. Archives of General Psychiatry, 37(3), 349–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallup, G. G. (1995). Have attitudes toward homosexuals been shaped by natural selection? Ethology and Sociobiology, 16, 53–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, R., & Stoller, R. J. (1971). Two monozygotic (identical) twin pairs discordant for gender identity. Archives of Sexual Behaviour, 1, 321–327.

  • Guttierrez, R. (1989). Must we deracinate Indians to find gay roots? Out/Look, 4, 61–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habel, H. (1950). Zwillingsuntersuchungen an Homosexueellen. Zeitschrift für Sexualforschung, 1, 161–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambright, K. (1995). Sexual orientation: What have we learned from primate research? In L. Diamant & R. D. McAnulty (Eds.), The psychology of sexual orientation, behavior, and identity: A handbook (pp. 136–161). Westport: Greenwood Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamer, D. H., Hu, S., Magnuson, V. L., Hu, N., & Pattatucci, A. M. (1993). A linkage between DNA markers in the X chromosome and male sexual orientation. Science, 261, 321–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The Genetical evolution of altruistic behavior. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7(1–16), 17–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heston, L. L., & Shields, J. (1968). Homosexuality in twins: A family study and a register study. Archives of General Psychiatry, 18, 149–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschfeld, D. (1903). Heredität und Homosexualität [Heredity and Homosexuality]. Jahrbuch für sexuelle Zwischenstufen [Year Book for Sexual Intermidiaries], 5(1), 138–159.

  • Holden, C. (1992). Twin study links genes to homosexuality. Science, 255(5040), 33.

  • Horgan, J. (1995). Gay genes, revisited. Scientific American, 273(5), 26.

  • Howson, C. (Ed.). (1976). Method and appraisal in the physical science: The critical background to modern science, 1800–1905. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, S., Pattatucci, A. M., Patterson, C., Li, L., Fulker, D. W., Cherny, S. S., et al. (1995). Linkage between sexual orientation and chromosome Xq28 in males but not in females. Nature Genetics, 11, 248–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, S. E. (1997). Is the ‘North American Berdache’ merely a phantom in the imagination of western social scientists? In S. E. Jacobs, et al. (Eds.), Two spirit people: Native american gender identity, sexuality and spirituality. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, A. M., Wardsworth, J., Wellings, K., Bradshaw, S., & Field, J. (1992). Sexual lifestyles and HIV risk. Nature, 360, 410–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kallman, F. (1952). Comparative twin study on the genetic aspects of male homosexuality. The Journal of Mental and Nervous Disease, 115(4), 283–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kallman, F. (1960). Discussion of Renier, J.D. et al., Homosexuality and heterosexuality in identical twins. Psychosomatic Medicine, 22, 258–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ketelaar, T., & Ellis, B. (2000). Are evolutionary explanations unfalsifiable? Evolutionary psychology and the Lakatosian philosophy of science. Psychological Inquiry, 11(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, M. C. (1993). Human genetics. Sexual orientation and the X (comment on Hamer et al., 1993). Nature, 364, 288–289.

  • Kirkpatrick, R. (2000). The evolution of human homosexual behavior. Current Anthropology, 41(3), 385–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klintworth, G. (1962). A pair of male monozygotic twins discordant for homosexuality. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 135, 113–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakatos, I. (1994). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programs. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 91–196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lancaster, R. N. (2003). The trouble with nature: Sex in science and popular culture. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lang, T. (1940). Studies on the genetic determination of homosexuality. Journal of Nervous Disease, 92, 370–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The sexual organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • LeVay, S. (1994). The sexual brain. London: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • LeVay, S. (1996). Queer science: The use and abuse of resesearch into homosexuality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Lewotin, R. C., Rose, S., & Kamin, L. (1984). Biology, ideology and human nature: Not in our genes. Middlesex: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macintyre, F., & Estep, K. W. (1993). Sperm competition and the persistence of genes for male homosexuality. Biosystems, 31, 223–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maddox, J. (1993). Willful public misunderstanding of genetics [Comment on Hamer et al.]. Nature, 364, 281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marmor, J. (1965). Sexual inversion: The multiple roots of homosexuality. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, T. R. (1995). Is homosexuality genetic? A critical review and some suggestions. Journal of Homosexuality, 28(1–2), 115–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKnight, J. (1997). Straight science: Homosexuality, evolution and adaptation. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Meindl, R. S. (1987). A selective advantage for cystic for fibrosis heterozygotes. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 74, 39–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Money, J. (1988). Gay, straight and in-between. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, T. F. (1996). The ethics of sexual orientation research. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muscarella, F. (2000). The evolution of homoerotic behavior in humans. Journal of Homosexuality, 40, 51–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pare, C. M. (1956). Homosexuality and chromosomal sex. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 1, 247–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, N. (1964). Homosexuality in twins: A report of three discordant pairs. British Journal of Psychiatry, 110, 489–495.

  • Pillard, R. C., & Weinrich, J. D. (1986). Evidence of familial nature of male homosexuality. Archives of General Psychiatry, 43(8), 808–812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pool, R. (1993). Evidence for homosexuality gene. Science, 261, 291–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pritchard, M. (1962). Homosexuality and genetic sex. Journal of Mental Science, 108, 616–623.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahman, Q., & Hull, M. S. (2005). An empirical test of the kin selection hypothesis for homosexuality. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34(2), 461–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rainer, J. D., Mesnikoff, A. M., Kolb, L. C., & Carr, A. (1960). Homosexuality and heterosexuality in identical twins. Psychosomatic Medicine, 29, 251–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rice, G., Anderson, C., Risch, N., & Ebers, G. (1999). Male homosexuality: Absence of linkage to microsatellite markers at Xq28. Science, 284, 665–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, R. C. (2007). Evolutionary psychology as maladjusted psychology. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Risch, N., Squires-Wheeler, E., & Keats, B. J. (1993). Male sexual orientation and genetic evidence. Science, 262, 2063.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, D. (1970). Genetic theory and abnormal behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruse, M. (1982). Are there gay genes? Sociobiology and homosexuality. In N. Koertge (Ed.), Philosophy and homosexuality (pp. 5–34). New York and London: Harrington Park Press.

  • Ruse, M. (1985). Are there gay genes? Sociobiology and homosexuality. Journal of Homosexuality, 6(4), 5–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruse, M. (1988). Homosexuality: A philosophical inquiry. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saghir, M. T., & Robins, E. (1973). Male and female homosexuality: A comprehensive investigation. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salais, D., & Fischer, R. B. (1995). Sexual preference and altruism. Journal of Homosexuality, 40, 385–413.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, J. (1934). Homosexueele tweelingen. Nederl Geneesk 78: 3346—3352 (From an abstract in English prepared by E. Slater).

  • Sober, E. (2000). The Meaning of genetic causation. In A. Buchanan, et al. (Eds.), From chance to choice: Genetics and injustice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steen, R. G. (1996). DNA and destiny: Nature and nurture in human behaviour. New York: Plenum Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stein, E. (1999). The mismeasure of desire: The science, theory and ethics of sexual orientation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teare, M. D., & Barret, J. H. (2005). Genetic linkage studies. Lancet, 366(9490), 1036–1044.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terry, J. (1995). The seductive power of science. In Vernon Rosario (Ed.), Science and homosexualities. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trivers, R. L. (1974). Parent-offspring conflict. American Zoologist, 14, 249–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urbach, P. (1974). Progress and degeneration in the IQ debate. British Journal for Philosophy of Science, 25(2), 99–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vasey, P. L. (1995). Homosexual behavior in primates: A review of evidence and theory. International Journal of Primatology, 16, 173–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vasey, P. L., Pocock, D. S., & VanderLaan, D. P. (2007). Kin selection and male androphilia in samoan fa’afafine. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 159–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vasey, P. L., & VanderLaan, D. P. (2012). Sexual orientation in men and avuncularity in Japan: Implications for the kin selection hypothesis. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 209–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinrich, J. D. (1976). Human reproductive strategy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.

  • West, D. J. (1967). Homosexuality. London: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitam, F. L., & Mathy, R. M. (1986). Male homosexuality in four societies. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickelgren, I. (1999). Discovery of the ‘gay gene’ questioned. Science, 284, 572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, E. O. (1975). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, E. O. (1978). On human nature. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, University of Nairobi, P. O. Box 30197-00100, Nairobi, Kenya

    Karori Mbugua

Authors
  1. Karori Mbugua
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karori Mbugua.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mbugua, K. Explaining Same-Sex Sexual Behavior: The Stagnation of the Genetic and Evolutionary Research Programs. J Gen Philos Sci 46, 23–43 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-014-9273-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-014-9273-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation