Clear and tightly focused, as is the study on which it is reporting. While presuming the reader is both savvy and curious (as one would, given the publication), every step of the presentation is concisely described. Though I have become leery of "discoveries" that lay presumptuous claim to identifying the source of human sexual orientations, this study admits to conclusions it did not expect. Only two caveats: the title would almost make one think that sexual identity could be ascribed on the basis of PET-scans taken during exposure to the substances. And the author does not voice the obvious objection to large inferences drawn from small samples: 12 of anything is mighty few, but perhaps they did their best with the available ... More »

This piece is a short summary of an original scientific research article. After reading the original article, I found that the author of this summary, Laura Blackburn, has cherry-picked and exaggerated the original research article, and neglected many caveats and subtleties in the original article. For example, the authors of the original article were cautious and tentative in drawing conclusions from their data (verbatim quote from the original article): "Together, these data suggest that lesbian women processed AND and EST more congruently with HeM (heterosexual men) than HeW (heterosexual women)." This is a far cry from the sweeping generalization made in the summary by Blackburn: "lesbian women are much more like ... More »

I completely agree with the review written by Lewyn Li. In addition, I'd add that Blackburn is making sweeping generalizations based on a study with an N of 12. That is, the study tested 12 lesbian women. While it's a good pilot study, no scientist worth his or her salt is going to make sweeping generalizations to an entire population based on a study with 12 participants.

A good story told crisply. No definition of the hormone acronyms listed, which for a relatively mainstream site is a downcheck.