評(píng)論
打印
Another fear is that evidence that genes play only a partial role could embolden people
另一個(gè)擔(dān)憂(yōu)是，基因只起到了部分作用的證據(jù)可能會(huì)助長(zhǎng)
who insist being gay is a choice and who advocate tactics like conversion therapy.
那些堅(jiān)稱(chēng)同性戀取向是選擇的結(jié)果的人群和提倡開(kāi)展性取向轉(zhuǎn)變治療等策略的人群的氣焰。
Steven Reilly, a geneticist and postdoctoral researcher who is on the steering committee of the institute’s L.G.B.T.Q. affinity group, Out@Broad said,
遺傳學(xué)家、博士后研究員史蒂文·賴(lài)?yán)桥c哈佛-麻省理工學(xué)院布洛德研究所志同道合的L.G.B.T.Q.組織 Out@Broad 指導(dǎo)委員會(huì)的委員，
“I deeply disagree about publishing this. It seems like something that could easily be misconstrued.”
他表示，“我很不贊成發(fā)表這一結(jié)果，因?yàn)檫@樣的研究結(jié)果很容易被大家誤解。”
He added, “In a world without any discrimination, understanding human behavior is a noble goal, but we don’t live in that world.”
他還說(shuō)道，“在沒(méi)有任何歧視的世界里，理解人類(lèi)的行為是很崇高的目標(biāo)，問(wèn)題是我們并沒(méi)有生活在那樣的世界。”
Discussions between Dr. Neale’s team and colleagues who questioned the research continued for months.
尼爾博士帶領(lǐng)的團(tuán)隊(duì)和質(zhì)疑該研究的同事討論這一問(wèn)題一連討論了數(shù)月。
Dr. Neale said the team, which included psychologists and sociologists,
尼爾博士表示，該團(tuán)隊(duì)——成員除了遺傳學(xué)家，還有心理學(xué)家和社會(huì)學(xué)家——
used suggestions from those colleagues and outside L.G.B.T.Q. groups to clarify wording and highlight caveats.
為了澄清措辭，強(qiáng)調(diào)告誡的內(nèi)容，還征求了那些同事以及L.G.B.T.Q.圈外人士的建議。
Dr. Neale, who is gay said,
尼爾博士本人就是同性戀，他表示，
“I definitely heard from people who were kind of ‘why do this at all,’ and so there was some resistance there.
“我確實(shí)聽(tīng)到了‘完全想不明白為什么來(lái)這一出’這樣的回應(yīng)，所以，還是有一些抵觸情緒的。
Personally, I’m still concerned that it’s going to be deliberately misused to advance agendas of hate,
就我個(gè)人而言，我還是比較擔(dān)心，這個(gè)結(jié)果會(huì)被惡意利用，被用來(lái)加深仇恨，
but I do believe that the sort of proactive way we’ve approached this
但我仍然相信，我們采取的積極主動(dòng)的應(yīng)對(duì)方式，
and a lot of the community engagement aspects that we’ve tried were important.”
以及我們嘗試過(guò)的各種社區(qū)活動(dòng)都是非常重要的。”
The moment the study was published online Thursday afternoon,
周四下午，布洛德研究所在線(xiàn)發(fā)表研究結(jié)果時(shí)，
the Broad Institute took the unusual step of posting essays by Dr. Reilly
一反常態(tài)地同時(shí)發(fā)表了賴(lài)?yán)┦康恼撐?/div>
and others who raised questions about the ethics, science and social implications of the project.
和對(duì)這一研究結(jié)果可能帶來(lái)的倫理、科學(xué)和社會(huì)影響提出了質(zhì)疑的人士的論文。
Joe Vitti, a postdoctoral researcher at the Broad Institute, said in one essay, “As a queer person and a geneticist,
該研究所博士后研究員喬·維特在一篇論文中寫(xiě)道，“身為一名同性戀者兼遺傳學(xué)家，
I struggle to understand the motivations behind a genome-wide association study for non-heterosexual behavior.
我很難理解開(kāi)展針對(duì)非異性戀行為的全基因組關(guān)聯(lián)研究背后的動(dòng)機(jī)。
I have yet to see a compelling argument that the potential benefits of this study outweigh its potential harms.”
目前，我還沒(méi)有看到能夠令人信服地證明這項(xiàng)研究的潛在益處大于潛在危害的論點(diǎn)。”
譯文由可可原創(chuàng)，僅供學(xué)習(xí)交流使用，未經(jīng)許可請(qǐng)勿轉(zhuǎn)載。
