First, why did it take 15 years after the discovery of the SrY gene to tie it to male brain development? Seems like someone should have done a whole-body in situ during after it was discovered, or hell, how about a RT-PCR on tissues, but, oh well. Anyway, the results are interesting. Apparently SrY compensates in the male brain for the lack of estrogen which plays a parallel role in females.

The study is "the first to identify a specific sex chromosome gene that has a sex-specific effect on the brain," says UCLA neuroendocrinologist Arthur Arnold (who was not involved in the study). The "paradox" of the paper is that "females are not deficient for the kinds of things Sry does" in males, he says. In other words, the Sry gene appears to compensate males for their lack of estrogen, which in females controls TH. "The results open the way to a whole new series of studies to identify the role of Sry in several brain regions," Arnold says.

Don't worry though, so far it doesn't seem to play a role in sexual orientation, it seems to instead play a prosaic role in regulation of dopaminergic neurons.

Also, what is up with conservatives and secrecy? Apparently Scalia was heckled at an AEI talk he gave. This is old news but the article reiterates that Scalia forbids television cameras or recordings of his talks (even getting a member of the press hassled by U.S. marshall once for recording him). What's up with the secrecy? Why would a member of our government be so paranoid about being televised or recorded when they give public talks? Is it because he is worried something he says will come back to haunt him? Like the bullshit pronouncement that he has a unified legal approach to SCOTUS cases last week?

Finally, it has been big in the news that the first abortion ban, on late-term D&C, is approaching the court. I actually don't think this will be the case to damage Roe as the law in this case has no provision to protect the health of the mother. Even the conservatives have been reluctant to allow such laws to stand in the past. It's just going to be a big farce and rile up the right wing just in time for next November's elections (but maybe against Bush when they overturn the law). What do the lawyers think?