BIOLOGICAL-RESEARCH ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION - A CRITIQUE OF THE CRITICS

Evolutionary biologists are tired of being accused of being too biolog ically deterministic, by critics who have little understanding of what biological or evolutionary theories actually imply. Misunderstandings came about because social-science disciplines often do not share evol utionary biology's tendency to build into their models multiple ''norm al'' paths of development. Sociobiologists first explained homosexuali ty adaptively because they first try to explain everything adaptively. Most nonbiologists are unaware of this very strong evolutionary tradi tion. It is now fashionable to discount scientific objectivity, but th ere are many examples of where such an attack is unwarranted, Kinsey p roduced a nontypological theory of sexual orientation in spite of his history as a taxonomist. Sociobiologists produced a nonpathological ex planation of nonreproductive homosexuality in spite of the centrality of reproductive success in their models. In judging whether a discipli ne is particularly likely to be misused in social debates, one must pe rform the appropriate intellectual ''controls.'' One must examine appr opriate uses as well as misuses, and one must examine other discipline s to see whether there are differences in the relative likelihood of a buse. Indeed, many social-science theories have been even more clearly abused than biological ones.