Dean Hamer (born 1951) is an American molecular biologist and geneticist who is well know for his research on the genetics of human behavior including sexual orientation. This is a clip of him explaining the genetics (specific genes) behind sexual orientation in layman's terms:

 

"Gay Gene" Research Doesn't Hold Under Scrutiny, Chicago Tribune's John Crewdson Uncovers Possible Scientific Misconduct by NCI Researcher.

In addition to the political and social firestorm Hamer's research has ignited, he has also been criticized by numerous scientists for not performing what seems to be an obvious control experiment: examining the genes of heterosexual brothers.

The omission of a control group in a scientific experiment is significant, because it essentially renders the experiment inconclusive. Why would a supposedly professional researcher like Hamer conduct an experiment in such an unacceptable and unprofessional fashion?

According to the article, another researcher who worked on the project claimed that although Hamer conducted the experiment correctly by including a control variable, the results he obtained did not lead to the conclusion he was hoping to find: that some men are "born gay." Hamer therefore did not release the information related to the control group and published pseudo-scientific results. All went well for Hamer until a junior researcher on his team exposed his scheme. The article continues:

Even worse for Hamer, the National Institute of Health?s Office of Research Integrity is now investigating his "gay gene" research, according to Crewdson. The inquiry concerns allegations that Hamer was selective about which data he chose to report (i.e., that he ignored data that didn't support his contention that homosexuality is genetically determined). The data manipulation was reported to NIH's integrity office by a junior researcher who performed research crucial to Hamer's claimed discovery, according to Crewdson.

Crewdson's revelations turned out to be true. A November 1995 edition of Scientific American confirmed that Hamer was "being charged with research improprieties and was under investigation by the National Institute of Health's Federal Office of Research Integrity." Although the NIH never released the results of the inquiry, Hamer was shortly thereafter transferred to another section. In addition to lying about his results, he had done his "gay gene" research under a grant to work on Kaposi's sarcoma, a skin cancer that inordinately afflicts men who have sex with men.

Upon learning that Hamer's "gay gene" study was a hoax, one might assume that if other researchers were to attempt to replicate his experiment, including his control group, they would fail to obtain the pseudo-scientific result that there is a "gay gene." This is exactly the case. The New York Native article continues:

[A]t least one lab that has tried hard to replicate his findings has been unsuccessful.

"Only one independent laboratory has reported attempting such a replication, and it has found no evidence to support Hamer," Crewdson reported. "We can't reproduce Hamer's data," said George Ebers, a neurogeneticist from the University of Western Ontario, who has searched unsuccessfully for a Hamer-style genetic link to homosexuality in more than 50 pairs of gay Canadian brothers. In fact, Ebers found the genetic markers cited by Hamer in "exactly half of his brother pairs" according to Crewdson ? precisely what the laws of chance would predict, if the "markers had no significance."

The fact that Hamer's study cannot be replicated confirms reports that Hamer lied about his results. In 1998, another group of researchers (Sanders, et al.) tried to replicate Hamer's study as well; they also failed to find a genetic connection to homosexuality.

Then, in the Aug. 6, 1999, edition of Science, George Rice and George Ebers published a review of Hamer's study to go along with their previous attempts to replicate his findings. The scientists stated that the results of Hamer's study "did not support an X-linked gene underlying male homosexuality." They found that the brothers observed by the Hamer group were no more likely to share the Xq28 markers than would be expected by mere chance.

By this time, Hamer had already conceded that his pseudo-scientific study did not support a genetic cause for homosexuality, in the Jan. 30, 1998, edition of the Washington Blade. He also conceded that homosexuality is "culturally transmitted, not inherited," and that "there is not a single master gene that makes people gay." I don't think we will ever be able to predict who will be gay," he said. 

in other words...he's a liar...and a fraud... 

You are. Here is what Wikipedia has to say about his research.

In the 1990s Hamer began studies of the role of genes in human behavior. In 1993 he published a paper in Science reporting that the maternal but not paternal male relatives of gay men had increased rates of same-sex orientation, suggesting the possibility of sex-linked transmission in a portion of the population. A genetic linkage analysis showed that gay brothers in these families had an increased probability of sharing DNA markers on the subtelomeric region of the long arm of the X chromosome, Xq28, providing the first direct molecular evidence for genes that influence human sexual orientation.[5] This finding was replicated in two other studies in the United States whereas a study in Canada found contrary results; meta-analysis of all data available at that time indicated Xq28 has a significant but not exclusive effect.[6][7][8] Subsequently, a genomewide scan by Hamerʻs group revealed several additional regions on autosomes that were moderately linked to male sexual orientation.[9]

Hamer's genetic linkage results were robustly replicated in a large, comprehensive multi-center genetic linkage study of male sexual orientation by an independent group of researchers as reported at the American Society of Human Genetics in 2012.[10] The study population included 409 independent pairs of gay brothers, who were analyzed with over 300,000 single-nucleotide polymorphism markers, and confirmed the Xq28 linkage by two-point and multipoint (MERLIN) LOD score mapping. Significant linkage was also detected in the pericentromeric region of chromosome 8, overlapping with one of the regions detected in the Hamer labʻs previous genomewide study. The authors concluded that "our findings, taken in context with previous work, suggest that genetic variation in each of these regions contributes to development of the important psychological trait of male sexual orientation." 

Jon's newspaper article was written in 1995.

Genetics/molecular biology and Dr. Hamer's research at the NIH (where he is till employed btw) have come a long way since then, and it's been verified by independent researchers. 

in other words...he's a liar...and a fraud...

takes one to know one for sure 

BINGO. 

You are.

apparently you can't comprehend what you read...Hamer himself said...homosexuality is "culturally transmitted, not inherited," and that "there is not a single master gene that makes people gay."

Hamer's genetic linkage results were robustly replicated in a large, comprehensive multi-center genetic linkage study of male sexual orientation by an independent group of researchers

from the report...

"We did not find linkage to Xq28 in the full sample, but given the previously reported evidence of linkage in this region, we conducted supplemental analyses to clarify these findings."

LOL...the previously reported evidence of linkage in this region was fraudulent data

Genetics/molecular biology and Dr. Hamer's research at the NIH (where he is till employed btw) have come a long way since then, and it's been verified by independent researchers.

absolutely false...

takes one to know one for sure?

nah...i know you and TD...but i'm not a satan follower...nor do i espouse his talking points... 

Now who would you believe..LOL... Lynch or scientists and Wikipedia??

Hamer's genetic linkage results were robustly replicated in a large, comprehensive multi-center genetic linkage study of male sexual orientation by an independent group of researchers as reported at the American Society of Human Genetics in 2012.[10]  

Hamer's genetic linkage results were robustly replicated in a large, comprehensive multi-center genetic linkage study of male sexual orientation by an independent group of researchers as reported at the American Society of Human Genetics in 2012.[10] The study population included 409 independent pairs of gay brothers, who were analyzed with over 300,000 single-nucleotide polymorphism markers, and confirmed the Xq28 linkage by two-point and multipoint (MERLIN) LOD score mapping. Significant linkage was also detected in the pericentromeric region of chromosome 8, overlapping with one of the regions detected in the Hamer labʻs previous genomewide study. The authors concluded that "our findings, taken in context with previous work, suggest that genetic variation in each of these regions contributes to development of the important psychological trait of male sexual orientation."?
you make my skin crawl..you don't know me. 

Now who would you believe..LOL... Lynch or scientists and Wikipedia?

LOL...i quoted scientists...you quoted wikipedia...

and God agrees that there is no "gay gene"...God trumps your garbage EVERY time...

you don't know me.

sure i do...Jesus said "Ye shall know them by their fruits"...and your fruit is anti-God... 

odd that you say that- it's exactly what I think describes you- you're the antithesis of a Christian- and everyone knows it- why do you think you're baited by non believers? you turn people away from God, and you do it on purpose- you're a fraud, lynch- 

it's exactly what I think describes you

LOL...you should quit thinking then...YOU'RE the nonbeliever here...

why do you think you're baited by non believers

because the Word and Its truth bothers them...why do you think nonbelievers agree with you?...birds of a feather?

you turn people away from God

still a statement with no merit...they're already away from God...

you're a fraud, lynch

LOL...i'm the one who has Scripture backing up my statements...something you NEVER do...

why is that?...because your words are anti-Scripture... 

Here are some recent scientific papers on the genetic linkage of homosexuality from the National Library of Medicine:

J Androl. 2012 Sep-Oct;33(5):951-4. Epub 2011 Sep 22.

Association analysis between the tag SNP for sonic hedgehog rs9333613 polymorphism and male sexual orientation.

Wang B1, Zhou S, Hong F, Wang J, Liu X, Cai Y, Wang F, Feng T, Ma X.


1Shenzhen Center for Chronic Disease Control and Prevention, Shenzhen, China.

Abstract
Male sexual orientation has been proposed to have genetic components, but previously suggested candidate genes have all received negative results. The human sonic hedgehog (SHH) gene is located in the 7q36 region, which was linked to male sexual orientation in a previous genome-wide association study. SHH is known to play an important role in embryo patterning, and there is evidence connecting it to sexual orientation. In this study, we performed an association analysis of the SHH tag single nucleotide polymorphism rs9333613 in 361 subjects and 319 Chinese male controls. We find a significant difference in genotype and allele distribution between identified homosexuals and heterosexual control subjects, suggesting that the SHH gene could potentially be associated with male sexual orientation.

============
New evidence of genetic factors influencing sexual orientation in men: female fecundity increase in the maternal line.

Iemmola F1, Camperio Ciani A.


Department of General Psychology, University of Padova, via Belzoni 80, Padua, Italy.

Abstract
There is a long-standing debate on the role of genetic factors influencing homosexuality because the presence of these factors contradicts the Darwinian prediction according to which natural selection should progressively eliminate the factors that reduce individual fecundity and fitness.

Recently, however, Camperio Ciani, Corna, and Capiluppi (Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences, 271, 2217-2221, 2004), comparing the family trees of homosexuals with heterosexuals, reported a significant increase in fecundity in the females related to the homosexual probands from the maternal line but not in those related from the paternal one. This suggested that genetic factors that are partly linked to the X-chromosome and that influence homosexual orientation in males are not selected against because they increase fecundity in female carriers, thus offering a solution to the Darwinian paradox and an explanation of why natural selection does not progressively eliminate homosexuals. Since then, new data have emerged suggesting not only an increase in maternal fecundity but also larger paternal family sizes for homosexuals. These results are partly conflicting and indicate the need for a replication on a wider sample with a larger geographic distribution. This study examined the family trees of 250 male probands, of which 152 were homosexuals. The results confirmed the study of Camperio Ciani et al. (2004). We observed a significant fecundity increase even in primiparous mothers, which was not evident in the previous study. No evidence of increased paternal fecundity was found; thus, our data confirmed a sexually antagonistic inheritance partly linked to the X-chromosome that promotes fecundity in females and a homosexual sexual orientation in males. 

Lynch or scientists and Wikipedia??


Wikipedia for sure. 

Dang, John. Don't you think you ought to have your genes profiled?

Might explain certain urges.... 

To begin with, we must ask what LeVay and Hamer have not shown. LeVay has found no proof of any direct link between the size of INAH 3 and sexual behavior. Size differences alone prove nothing. He was also unable to exclude the possibility that AIDS has an influence on brain structure, although this seemed unlikely, since six of the heterosexual men he studied also had AIDS. Moreover, Hamer did not find a gene for homosexuality; what he discovered was data suggesting some influence of one or more genes on one particular type of sexual preference in one group of people. Seven pairs of brothers did not have the Xq28 genetic marker, yet these brothers were all gay. Xq28 is clearly not a sine qua non for homosexuality; it is neither a necessary nor a sufficient cause by itself.

And what about women? Although the genitalia of women as well as men are clearly biologically determined, no data exist to prove a genetic link, or a link based on brain structure, with female sexual preferences, whether heterosexual or homosexual. Finally, neither study has been replicated by other researchers, the necessary standard of scientific proof. Indeed, there is every reason to suppose that the INAH 3 data will be extremely difficult to confirm. Only a few years ago INAH 1 (located close to INAH 3) was also thought to be larger in men than in women. Two groups, including LeVay's, have failed to reproduce this result.

Most of these limitations are clearly acknowledged by both LeVay and Hamer in their original scientific papers and are reinforced at length in their books.

from - Is Homosexuality Inherited? by Richard Horton 

Don't you think you ought to have your genes profiled?

LOL...you do it...if you believe in that nonsense...

i already know the answer to your problem...lack of God in your life... 

Look, I am not a scientist, what I know, what I feel - you are or who you are. It isn't about a matter of choice. I never believed someone wanted to be that "perverted" (to use others words). It is something they are, just like you and me are "who" we are. That means smart, stupid, bad tempered, or passive, straight or gay - it is just who we are. Some is caused by our "grow up" environment, but most is decided by our DNA. 

Genetics/molecular biology and Dr. Hamer's research at the NIH (where he is till employed btw) have come a long way since then, and it's been verified by independent researchers.

absolutely false...

He is still at the NIH holding the title of Scientist Emeritus. 

It isn't about a matter of choice.

yep...it is...

homosexuality isn't natural...God says so...and you're not more knowledgeable than God...

Some is caused by our "grow up" environment

it's ALL caused by that...and CHOICES... 

Look at the "who's talking" section in the left column of this page. The person with the highest number of comments is the most gay. 

snake, he's a fraud- he's not a Christian, by his verbiage- don't bother to address him- 

He is still at the NIH holding the title of Scientist Emeritus.

nope...he retired in 2011...but what does that tell you about the NIH...keeping a liar and a fraud until then...

"In recognition of the emerging risks from dubious applications of preliminary discoveries, NIH launched a Task Force on Genetic Testing in April. The twenty-member committee includes representatives from industry, managed-care organizations, and patient-advocacy groups, and is chaired by Neil A. Holtzman, a professor of pediatrics and health policy at Johns Hopkins University. Far from being a friend to the hyperbolists, Holtzman has written that "physicians should be at the forefront of decrying florid genetic determinism and its dire implications for health and welfare reform."[30] His committee is charged with performing a two-year study of genetic technologies, which will look specifically at the accuracy, safety, reliability, and social implications of new testing procedures. This move is not without self-interest on the part of the geneticists at the NIH. Members of the US Congressional House Appropriations Committee, which closely monitors NIH spending, have said that they may freeze the Human Genome Project's $153 million grant if ethics issues are not given close attention.

But sex-based research has already run into political trouble. The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste has charged that some NIMH research is a misuse of taxpayer's money." 

he's not a Christian

LOL...you wouldn't know a Christian if you were in a room surrounded by them... 

from - Is Homosexuality Inherited? by Richard Horton

John that editorial was written 25 years ago. Twenty-five years in science is an eternity. I explicitly mentioned that science and genetics has evolved since then and there are many studies now that are identifying the genes and other factors responsible.

You need to get caught up so you can evolve beyond willful ignorance. 

there's that white noise, again- 

"In recognition of the emerging risks from dubious applications of preliminary discoveries, NIH launched a Task Force on Genetic Testing in April. The twenty-member committee includes representatives from industry, managed-care organizations, and patient-advocacy groups, and is chaired by Neil A. Holtzman, a professor of pediatrics and health policy at Johns Hopkins University.

This committee will examine whether genetic tests for diseases should be released for use in patients. 

You need to get caught up so you can evolve beyond willful ignorance.

LOL...good luck with that. 

and God agrees that there is no "gay gene"...God trumps your garbage EVERY time...

More idiotic nonsense by the fauxchristian... 

homosexuality isn't natural...God says so...

I know the bible, which was written by men, in a time that is not remotely close to what it is now, says man should not lay with man. I have known gay men who killed themselves over this. The Bible was written by man, and all the argument in the world, I can tell you other "bibles" that god also dictated (supposedly). Some, much purer than the bible. But, I am Christian - I just still believe it was written by man and not really god. Just as all men do today, they did then - they adlib. I have healthful arguments against a word 2000 year old. But, I believe the most. 

Twenty-five years in science is an eternity.

in some things it is...but not here...because you can't find something that isn't there...

You need to get caught up so you can evolve beyond willful ignorance.

people don't evolve...in fact...the more they reject God...they devolve...

willful ignorance comes from denying God..."My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee" 

SiFi said it best. He's a Christian hating troll whose mission is to drive people away from God. It seems to be working. 

I know the bible, which was written by men

if you KNEW the Bible...you would know that God authored it...

in a time that is not remotely close to what it is now

truth doesn't change...

Some, much purer than the bible.

LOL...absolute nonsense...

Just as all men do today, they did then - they adlib.

God doesn't adlib...

I have healthful arguments against a word 2000 year old. But, I believe the most.

that makes absolutely no sense... 

SiFi said it best. He's a Christian hating troll whose mission is to drive people away from God. It seems to be working.

You talking about John? 

Push the button and ask for something to help with your dreams about shiny naked black bodies, John.

Nite nite time for me. 

He's a Christian hating troll whose mission is to drive people away from God.

the only thing sifi knows about Christianity was learned from satan's talking points...

LOL...you're the Christian hating troll...but in the end...the Christians win...i've read The Book... 

the perfect cover for someone to turn people away from God- make faith look moronic, and be very combative, condescending, and insulting- even when a Christian agrees with him, he attacks them- he always take the side of the evil- case in point, Paterno- I fervently hope those unsure of what they want spiritually, don't judge based on this man- 

you would know that God authored it...

Yes, but man still wrote it. Doesn't matter. Gay is not a choice. People kill themselves everyday because of people like you who say made a choice. As ignorant as you may be bout this, they do not make a choice -it is no more a choice than you and I be C. It is our way, it is what we preferred. I think science will answer this question one day, but not today. 

the perfect cover for someone to turn people away from God

LOL...you're the one trying to make Christianity and God/Jesus look moronic...by making such idiotic statements as "make faith look moronic"...you don't understand the meaning of faith...belief in God/Jesus isn't "a faith"...

he attacks them

LOL...i may rebuke what they say...because i'm consistent with defending the truth...but that's not attacking them...you don't even understand that simple concept

he always take the side of the evil

LOL...you're the one on the side of murdering innocent babies...using drugs...and using alcohol...things God decries as evil in the Word...

case in point, Paterno

LOL...paterno did nothing wrong...unlike you...he was against abortion...and unlike you...he didn't bear false witness...