The original outlet for LeVay’s study, Science, holds a premier reputation, but it clearly emphasizes the natural, life, and physical sciences with less emphasis on the social and behavioral sciences. The journal was no stranger to the debate concerning a biological basis for sex differences in the human brain. Science previously had published at least four similarly flawed studies (Cherfas, 1991; de Lacoste-Utamsing & Holloway, 1982; Gladue, Green, & Heilman, 1984; Swaab & Fliers, 1985) in which purported dimorphic male and female brain structures had been found in humans, all suggesting a link between the differences in structure and differences in male and female behavior. One (Cherfas, 1991) went so far as to specifically link these differences to sexual orientation. All contained one or more problems in method, analysis, or interpretation: small sample size (de Lacoste-Utamsing & Holloway, 1982); over-generalization from men to women (Gladue et al., 1984); over-generalization from animals to humans (Cherfas, 1991; Swaab & Fliers, 1985).
Strong editorial support for biological models of human sexuality also was demonstrated, by the inclusion of other major review articles related to the neurological basis for sexuality, in the same issue that contained LeVay’s report. These lengthy articles, featured in the early pages of the issue, focused on laboratory animal research having the appearance of more rigor, and by association, conveyed a sense of rigor about LeVay’s work that
did not exist. If LeVay’s actual article was not explicit in suggesting that he had found a cause for homosexuality, the lead article of the issue promoted that conclusion (Barinaga, 1991). This featured color reproductions of the photos presented in his report, and a color photograph of LeVay, the “Brain Man” himself (p. 956). Two other articles, one regarding the “Brain as Sexual Organ” (Gibbons, 1991), and one describing the neurobiological evidence for a narrowing of the gender gap (Holden, 1991a), were conjoined with the Barinaga article. In the same issue Holden (1991b) also offered a short briefing on the progress of brain scanning and mapping, illustrating the expertise of contemporary science in dealing with the once impenetrable brain (p. 964). Whether intentional or not, that issue of Science had the effect of allowing the sensationalizing of the study while preserving the scientific tone of the actual article which was placed among the more technical reports.