Gay Science

Mainstream media

Gay Science received positive reviews from James Edward Van Buskirk in Library Journal and R. W. Smith in Choice and a mixed review from the biologist Ruth Hubbard in The Times Literary Supplement.^[3][4][5] The book was also reviewed by the gay writer Gabriel Rotello in New Scientist.^[6]

Van Buskirk described the book as an "important addition to the field" and a useful complement to LeVay's Queer Science (1996). He credited Murphy with providing an objective account of sexual orientation research and its ethical implications.^[3] Smith credited Murphy with providing a "carefully detailed" and "meticulously logical" analysis of the moral implications of research into the causes of homosexuality. However, he also described the book as "somewhat repetitious".^[4]

Hubbard credited Murphy with addressing "a range of interesting questions about the purpose and uses of scientific research" into homosexuality, but criticized his writing, calling it "convoluted and ponderous". She also criticized him for writing "as though ethics and moral philosophy exist outside politics", arguing that "the power relationships that determine what science gets done also circumscribe the extent to which it is done ethically" and that if "scientific inquiring takes place in a context in which its results are certain to be misused, then the ethical innocence it may have in other contexts becomes irrelevant".^[5]

Gay media

Gay Science received a positive review from the psychiatrist Vernon Rosario in The Harvard Gay & Lesbian Review. Rosario described the book as a "welcome addition to the debate" on biological research on homosexuality, and credited Murphy with providing "a scientifically well-informed and balanced review of the recent research and its possible ethical implications" and with being "well-versed in the basic science and cognizant of the enormous theoretical and methodological impediments to doing sound research in this area." He agreed with him that it is reasonable to hypothesize that homosexuality might have a biological basis, but considered him overly optimistic in believing that research into that possibility would benefit gay people. He commented that, "it seems unlikely that biological research on homosexuality will easily shake off its 150-year-old association with the pathologization of same-sex love", and noted that all of the sexual orientation research Murphy discussed was actually concerned specifically with homosexuality. He wrote that while Murphy discussed hypothetical scenarios in which it became possible for scientists to manipulate "sexual orientation in utero or in adults", his "countless scenarios seem contrived and belabored". He described Murphy's view that adults should be free to have their sexual orientation changed through biological manipulation and that "mothers would have the right to abort fetuses that tested positive for homosexuality", if either of these things ever became possible, as "disturbing", but also difficult to argue against.^[7]

Scientific and academic journals

Gay Science received positive reviews from Mark Chekola in Bioethics,^[8] the philosopher Michael Ruse in the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science,^[9] and Daniel Wolfe in Culture, Health & Sexuality,^[10] and a mixed review from the sex researcher James D. Weinrich in Human Biology.^[11] The book was also reviewed by the psychiatrist Susan Bradley in The New England Journal of Medicine,^[12] the philosopher Udo Schüklenk in JAMA,^[13] the philosopher David Hull in The Quarterly Review of Biology,^[14] the philosopher Sandra Harding in the Journal of Homosexuality,^[15] and the feminist scholar Martha McCaughey in Science, Technology, & Human Values.^[16]

Chekola described the book as "an admirable exploration of issues related to research on sexual orientation and possible applications of such research". He credited Murphy with being the first person to write a comprehensive work examining these issues, calling him "extremely thorough and exhaustive". He also credited Murphy with carefully discussing the limitations of research by LeVay, Bailey, Hamer, Hall, Kimura, and Nicolosi. He wrote that while Murphy's speculation that science might develop means of preventing or altering homosexuality, and that the number of gay people would be diminished as a result, might seem "odd and chilling", it was "an interesting exercise in looking at the implications scientific knowledge might have for people's choices that could result in a minority's becoming smaller, a concern not limited to gay and lesbian people." However, he also wrote that Murphy's thoroughness would probably limit his audience to academics, and that "Many undergraduates would likely get lost at various points in the book."^[8]

Ruse credited Murphy with having "a deep and sensitive knowledge of the appropriate areas of science", being "able to write clearly and distinctly about difficult issues, so that one can follow without any trouble the sorts of points that he wants to make", and providing good discussions of the work of researchers such as LeVay. He wrote that Murphy's book made his own work Homosexuality: A Philosophical Inquiry (1988) in "many respects ... dated and redundant." He agreed with Murphy's defense of inquiry into the origins of sexual orientation. He found Murphy's discussion of attempts by parents to control the sexual orientation of their children interesting, but disputed Murphy's conclusion that parents would have the right to engage in such attempts, arguing that rather than granting them that right it would be better "to change societal attitudes about homosexuality so that people do not show prejudice against homosexuals." He found Murphy's discussion of laws about homosexuality interesting, but questioned whether Murphy provided "anything which is deeply grounded in a well thought-out philosophy of law". He also questioned whether Murphy was right to devote attention to the issue of whether it is possible or desirable to change a person's sexual orientation and noted that, "Murphy seems to have virtually no time or interest in Freud's work, even though a mere twenty years ago the Freudian etiological analysis of homosexuality was considered really significant." He also observed that Murphy had little or no interest in discussing social constructionist views influenced by Foucault.^[9]

Wolfe described the book as "invaluable for students of gay history, medicine and their intersections", and praised its, "Careful summary and careful citations". He complimented Ruse for his discussions of the research of Bieber, Socarides, Hamer, and LeVay, his account of conversion therapy, and his philosophical discussion of the ethical questions involved in scientific research on sexual orientation, including the possible development of methods to prevent or alter homosexuality. He also credited Murphy with exposing the oversimplification of research such as that of LeVay by the media. Though noting that not all readers would find Murphy's ethical discussions interesting, he agreed with Murphy's criticisms of Finnis's views, while finding them obvious. He criticized Murphy for devoting too much space to discussing anti-gay views and arguments.^[10]

Weinrich credited Murphy with providing a "reasonably up-to-date review" of scientific accounts of sexual orientation, and endorsed Murphy's criticisms of Finnis, calling them "complete and devastating". He also praised Murphy for helpfully addressing "questions about the supposed naturalness or unnaturalness of homosexual desire and behavior" and for his discussion of "the consequences for society of his lines of thought." However, he described much of Murphy's discussion of the question of whether research into sexual orientation should be undertaken at all as boring, and wrote that most of Murphy's conclusions ranged "from self-evident to uninteresting." He also accused Murphy of being naive in his discussion of how institutions such as the Catholic Church and the American military might respond to the development of scientific methods of preventing or detecting homosexuality, and argued that he was overly critical of sociobiological explanations of homosexuality, and sometimes showed a "less than perfect" understanding of biology.^[11]

Footnotes

Bibliography

Books

Journals