This research is interesting--and flawed--on so many levels that I really don't know where to start. Begin with "sheep are not people," but go on from there.

Something like this was treated on an allegorical level in the movie "X Men: The Last Stand." The premise was a new vaccine that could cure the mutations rampant in the Marvel universe. Various mutants responded in various ways, ranging from those who clamored to get a shot, to those who were furious at the idea that their mutation could be considered something that was "wrong" with them.

Of course, the response in the movie often depended on whether your mutation caused you to frighten horses and small children, or let you fly like Superman.

I have gone on record as warning against genetic engineering to remove any "gay gene" (assuming, of course, there is such a thing.) This is not a moral issue, but sheer logic: Given what we are learning about how genes are interlinked and perform multiple functions, it was reasonable to assume that a gene for homosexuality that has survived for hundreds of thousands of year, which you would think would be horribly anti-survival for a species, just might be linked to something that is very pro-survival. Leave it alone.

But this idea of "treating" homosexuality after the fact, without any genetic engineering, raises a whole new set of questions.

Let's deal with it theoretically.

Assuming there's actually a "there" there (and I'm not buying it yet) and assuming the treatment is not dangerous (I'm not buying that yet, either), should such a treatment be made available to parents? How about to adults?

And the big question, in the realm of science being forced to serve politics: Should all such research into this be shut down?