The rough and tumble of professional science is no place for the faint-hearted. Progress rests on honest appraisal of methods and results. Ideas must be challenged and conclusions defended. One of the most important transitions for any researcher is swapping the textbook scrutiny of the undergraduate years for critical and creative thinking. At the centre of this culture is the academic conference.

Often the first chance for studies to be presented, discussed and criticized, these meetings are an important testing ground for early research. The community gets a heads-up on what others are doing, and how, and the scientists involved get some robust feedback that can shape their work.

Against such criteria, the presentation of preliminary data from a search for the genetic roots of homosexuality, at a meeting of the American Society of Human Genetics in Baltimore, Maryland, earlier this month, was a success. So why does it feel as if something went wrong?

In a ten-minute talk at the meeting, lead researcher Tuck Ngun described how his team scanned the DNA of 37 pairs of identical twins for chemical, or epigenetic, tags. They found a handful of similarities between many of the gay twins that were not present in their straight brothers.

Epigenetic tags, which often regulate gene expression, can be both inherited and affected by environmental factors, as seems to be the case for homosexuality itself. The findings were preliminary, but the idea that epigenetics is involved in sexual orientation is certainly plausible, and the researchers hoped that their findings would stimulate future research. Most labs shy away from studying homosexuality because funders are reluctant to wade into the topic and because of the well-founded worry that findings will be used in the misguided search for a ‘cure’.

A flurry of press coverage ensued. Although some of the stories noted the study’s small sample size and need for replication — limitations that the researchers readily acknowledged — others were somewhat less than circumspect. ‘Have They Found the Gay Gene? Breakthrough in the US’, screamed the front page of one newspaper.

Responding to the press coverage, many commentators took aim at the science — or at least what science was available in the 368-word conference abstract. The statistical analyses that the authors used are controversial, and there is a legitimate debate to be had. But short on hard information, the criticism turned into attack.

Meetings are an important testing ground for early research.

A few critics went so far as to argue that the authors should not have presented such preliminary work at the meeting. And at least one suggested that the authors could have provided preprints of their study when presenting it. These arguments seem to misunderstand the traditional, and still useful and relevant, role of such gatherings. Studies with small sample sizes and controversial methods are presented at conferences all the time, and many scientists already fear being scooped when they present even a bit of their data.

It is unlikely that most newspapers seek science stories by meticulously scanning the abstract lists for foreign scientific conferences. It is much more likely that the wide coverage afforded to the epigenetics study arose because the story was presented to news desks in a press release from the conference organizers — and this is where there are lessons to learn.

Particle physics has “cried wolf too many times and lost credibility.”

The press release, which was not seen or approved by all the scientists involved, was titled ‘Epigenetic Algorithm Accurately Predicts Male Sexual Orientation’. It certainly added to the potential for the study to be misinterpreted. The organizers have pledged to reconsider how they select which conference talks to highlight before a meeting, and how press releases are approved.

The genetics of homosexuality is a subject that will always find media coverage, partly because of the societal interest in the topic. Neither the scientists nor the conference organizers can be held responsible for how some in the media chose to write about the study. But both could have done more to get the right message across.