16 — OUT IN THE MOUNTAINS — OCTOBER 1999 IIIIIEIITATIIIN or TIIE smirs: A mini AT THE nrsuincn sunnoimniim Iiumosriiunurv noes size Ileallv Matter After All? BY LARRY RUDIGER ambling brings out my cyn- 6 ical side. In my less forgiv- ing moments I’ve referred to lottery games — at least the ones with huge prizes -— as a tax on people who don’t know much about statistics and probability. Oh, sure, the long odds are part of the fun and the thrill. In a way, being afraid to travel _ by airplane is the flip-side. One might rationally conclude that the chances of winning the lottery and dying in a commercial air accident are vanishingly small. We’ve all heard that flying is the ‘safest way to travel.’ And, as the clever lottery advertisements put it so enticingly, ‘hey, you never know,’ even though you really do. But in both cases, argu- ments based on facts are sometimes less com- pelling than the thrills and fears leading people toward (or away from) their hoped-for (or worst-case) outcomes. So when trying to evaluate research on sexual orientation, many people’s first impression is negative because, in general, the studies are small and must not be very trust- worthy, right? Compared, say, to the US Census, or even those carefully con- structed public opinion surveys, the majority of research that has examined uncommon sexual behavior has involved rather few people. Recognizing this quality of the work, it is easy to then dismiss it. I think that would be a mis- take. Yes, if you want to make a prediction about, how many people will vote for Elizabeth Dole, then, to a point, asking more people should yield more reliable predictions. In those instances, careful sampling is important. Likewise, if you want to measure opinions about inf. ' Suiaquam *9 mieati Cali ‘800-882-AIDS K J GLBT issues and people, then (sample) size does matter. There are, however, other research questions where large samples don’t necessarily give you more reliable results. Sure, in a perfect world you’d measure as many people as possible. But that’s both inconvenient and expensive. Because there is no federal funding available target- ing research on sexual orienta- tion, then these real-world con- siderations bear down quite heav- ily on this matter. Researchers are most often pursuing these topics in addition to their time-consum- ing work that is funded. So for all these reasons, when you read about research examin- ing sexual orientation, I would recommend that you don’t get too bogged down in criticizing a study because it’s small. And here’s a little secret: sometimes, with research, small studies are more informative than big ones. Let me talk about a rather well- known example. Many people remember Simon LeVay’s famous research where he found difierences in the brain structures between gay and straight men. Critics dismiss that work because there were few sub- jects involved,“ and most of the gay men (actually, their brains, for this was done on cadavers) died of AIDS, although LeVay convincingly demonstrated that probably doesn’t matter. But this project_also ‘suffers’ because so few brains were studied, right? Actually, no. As with most research, the techniques used to quantify the differences between straight and gay men’s brains are called inferential statistics. These methods go beyond summarizing the findings (a part of straight men’s brains is, on average, larg- er than gay men’s) and make a probabilistic statement about the observations. When the findings are ‘statisically significant,’ that means there’s a very low proba- bility they were due only to chance. In this case, the raw size of the difference has to be more pronounced than if LeVay had examined hundred of brains. That’s because, as the size of the groups increases, then the amount of discrepancy required to pass statistical muster actually goes down. In addition, when the group studied is small, it’s more likely that they are an un-repre- sentative sample of the larger population. So the statistical summary takes that into account- Relatively speaking, the dif- ference LeVay reported is very large and not easily dismissed. In fact, to my knowledge, there has yet to be any follow-up studies that would invalidate his finding. Still, it is one, small study. And as you probably recall from mid- dle school, replication —- literal- ~ly doing the same thing again — is critical in determining the reli- ability of a result, no matter how dramatic. Among neuroscientists LeVay’s findings are provoca- tive, and ‘within ‘their more spe- cialized research journals the matter generated some lively debate. However, it is just about impossible to write a grant that would garner the sort of research dollars that might fund conclu- sive studies, particularly of this sort, which tend to be expensive. Before you conclude that this is some form - of institutional homophobia, a word of caution. People must train for many years to‘ ‘conduct this type of research. There is tremendous demand for skilled neuroscientists, (think about that, if you’re looking for a career!) and the advances in understanding neurological dis- orders that affect millions of peo- ple are most impressive. Perhaps ‘discovering’ the cause of sexual orientation in- this fashion is rightfully a lower priority ven- ture than, say, trying to under- stand Parkinson’s disease. What’s more, even though LeVay and other researchers have described differences between the brains of people based on their sexual orientation, that doesn’t directly address the mat- ter of causation. One of the more impressive general findings in neuroscience is that the_brain is a .much ‘more flexible and plastic system than we once thought. Experience influences brain structure. So maybe being gay causes men’s brains to develop differently, not the other way around. Short of conducting a large experimental study, starting with infants, who were system- atically exposed to different environments that ‘should’ lead to homosexuality or heterosexu- ality, there’s not much chance that a single line of research will ever provide conclusive results Don ’t get too bogged down in criticizing a study because its small anyway, and the ethical prob- lems of such a study are obvi- ous. However, by examining the lives oftwins, we can come very close to just such an ambitious experiment and consider the ways genes and environment interact to shape sexual identity. Again, just because we might find convincing evidence that, for sexual orientation, the envi- ronment doesn’t matter -— or matters_a great deal — that doesn’t establish exactly roads do lead toward GLB identity, or for that matter, to heterosexuali- ’ ty. So to this interesting area I would like to devote my next installment. V Larry Rudiger is a Research Fellow in the Division of Behavior Genetics, Department of Psychiatry, College of Medicine at UVM His work there focuses on children and families. 20 Charming Rooms Peace & Privacy ‘Qfe 100 Acres 0 Pool Hot Tub - Trails ‘Hi bland; P.O. Box 118 Bethlehem, NH 03574 603-869-3978 1-877-LES-B-INN (537-2466) vacationflhlghlandsinn-nh.com A LESBIAN PARADISE ‘Inn wwmhighlandslnn-nh.com KAISER PERMANENTE E.3C\'}lVV1\|II‘lY',' : Ht-.iIih Pi.m NORTHEAST DIVISION Carol Thayer, M.D. ' PO Box 1160, RD2 ' Fairfax, VI‘ 05454 Puoma: 802/524-9595 FAX: 802/524-2867 it (802) 586-7793 Maryarme Southam Doctor of Oriental Medecine Licensed Acupuncturist (NM #496) Chinese Herbalist Licensed Massage Therapist (NM #384) P.O. Box 52 Craftsbury, VT 05826 (802) 254-8032 Michael Gigante, Ph.D. Psychosynthesis Counseling, Psychotherapy, 9 Consultation 15 Myrtle St., Brattleboro, VT 05301 email mgigante@together.net Cheryl A. Gibson M.D. Susan F. Smith M.D. woimnaic 1010: GY.NECOl.OG|C ASSOCIATES 23 Mansfield Avenue Burlington, Vermont 05401 802-863-9001 Fax: 802-862-9637 2 Church St. Burlington sliding fee scale &Feminist Therapv Leah Wiitenberg Licensed Mental Health Counselor Psychotherapy for IndMduals and couples (802) 658-9590 ext. 4 L