The Science Daily post presents a reasonably comprehensive summary of the research article. That begins with offering an insightful high-level overview that some physical attributes of the homosexual brain resemble those found in the opposite sex. The subsequent paragraphs then correctly report the left and right hemisphere’s symmetric patterns in relation to sexual identity. The Science Daily article’s author attempts to compress the findings into a simplified form. The author also maintains fair simplicity – as seen in the statement that “lesbians resemble straight men, and gay men resemble straight women” (Science Daily, 2008). It is also remarkable that the writer did not intend to take on the complex affair of explaining Positron emission tomography (PET) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) but instead simply stated their role in the study. Lastly, relating the observations to the flight-or-fight stimuli ensures complete coverage of the scientific rationale. This makes the article understandable and well within frames of logic.
However, in prioritizing conciseness and simplicity over detail, the Science Daily article author leaves out some of the research’s sensitive elements. While the excluded items do not necessarily affect the blog’s accuracy, it makes it practically unusable beyond knowing that heterosexual men (HeM) and homosexual women (HoW) bear similar brain structures. I will discuss three major shortfalls of the Science Daily article compared to Savic & Lindstrom’s work.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Loss of statistical value
Beyond stating that the study involved 90 subjects, the Science Daily article does not mention any other significant data or statistical information. That erodes the paper’s statistical value, which is often a crucial force in driving comprehension. In my opinion, the blog should have stated the age factor, including stating the individual age brackets for HeW, HeM, HoW, and HoM. The age factor is important because it defines the degree of sexual stimulation and hormonal activity, which is a core element of inquiry in Savic & Lindstrom’s work. While an ordinary summary article does not have to do this, including the PET/MRI image of amygdala illustrations and briefly explaining the illustrations would help the reader build a stronger image of the subject.
The omission of ancillary factors
While auxiliary factors are not entirely needed to understand the paper, mentioning them enables the reader to build the right context to the information. For instance, the summary mentions nothing about sex differences in brain size and genetic factors, which are strongly attributed to affecting the distinction between HeW and HoM brain structures (Savic & Lindstrom 2008). For instance, mentioning that a similar investigation in rats indicated that early androgen exposure led to male cerebral asymmetry while this is revered with neonatal ovariectomy would build a relatable difference between male and female neurobiological responses.
Omitted side note details
The paper also leaves out an important remark by Savic & Lindstrom – that some of the neurobiological changes cannot be easily attributed to (sexual) behavior, especially with such a limited sample size. The omission of such trivial-looking details generates an overly generalized concept that does not match the unique findings of scholarly work.
The Science Daily article also fails to cite some of the scholarly paper’s assumptions and biases. For instance, Savic & Lindstrom (2008) admit that the variance in their statistical sampling of MR image scans was reduced by including only right-handed respondents. That suggests the possibility of right or left-handedness being a factor affecting image interpretations. The paper also recognizes the need for age-matched populations without correction for aging effects to obtain an objective relationship between cerebral asymmetry and sexual orientation.
In conclusion, the Science Daily article author offers a good recap of Savic & Lindstrom’s (2008) paper on cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects. However, in the interest of succinctness, the blog loses out on some important aspects of the study. However, the writer maintains a congruent interpretation and reasoning with Savic & Lindstrom.
References
Savic, I., & Lindström, P. (2008). PET and MRI Show Differences in Cerebral Asymmetry and Functional Connectivity Between Homo-And Heterosexual Subjects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 105(27), 9403-9408.
Science Direct. (2008). “ Symmetry of Homosexual Brain Resembles That of Opposite Sex, Swedish Study Finds. ” Retrieved https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617151845.htm
