setting, to a representative sample of homosexuals and compared the results to the pre -existing matched norms for her test group. No that’s not correct either: Someone else, an expert in projective testing, should have done so. But apart from that evident fact, by creating her own norms, she indeed created an artifactual setting from the outset in which the expe rimental parameters lacked any objective criteria—other than that the norms of both groups must end up identical—or ought to have unless some difference between the groups was nonetheless so great as to overwhelm the enormous lengths she went to in advance , blur any possibility of the tests’ detecting it. One other fatal problem with the study: Hooker did not even maintain the initial experimental procedure she designed herself but altered it when her test (homosexual) group actually disproved her hypothesis and did display a difference she hypothesized wouldn’t exist. One of her original hypotheses was that sexual orientation could not be determined by the ROR, TAT and MAPS. But in the course of the established TAT and MAPS test procedures, the homosexual group subjects were unable to refrain from a very high degree of homosexual fantasizing in their imaginary accounts. Not so the heterosexuals. Both the nature and degree of sexual fantasy was different in the homosexual group from the heterosexual group, an especially striking fact given that the subjects knew that this “controlled experiment” was supposed to demonstrate that homosexuals were in no way different than heterosexuals. Once it became evident that the TAT and MAPS identified which subjects were h omosexual, Hooker dropped these two tests from the experimental design—post hoc. That such a study was considered for publication is bizarre—were one to assume that the peer-review and editorial decision-making process was itself scientific in nature and n ot purely political. The editors of Projective Testing themselves make clear, however, that it was not scientific and they were not acting as scientists. In a footnote on page 18 they explain: “If some of Dr. Hooker’s comments, as cautiously presented as t hey are, seem premature or incompletely documented, the blame must fall on the editors who exercised considerable pressure on her to publish now.” In sum, in spite of its being the lynchpin for the APA’s decision to de-list homosexuality as a disorder, and the only study offered with any details in the Lawrence brief, Evelyn’s Hooker’s 1957 “scientific research” on homosexuality is the American equivalent of Trofim Denisovisch Lysenko’s scientific research on the inheritance of acquired characteristics in plant seed left to “germinate” in the Siberian Arctic. 16 Homosexuality and/as Psychopathology: The Evidence to Date What is the actual scientific status of homosexuality as a “disorder” as provided by the sources used by amici? Or, to phrase the question pr operly, “In the authorities referenced by amici, what evidence is there, if any, for an intrinsic association between homosexuality and psychopathology, an association beyond that attributable to stigma, bias, prejudice, ‘internalized homophobia’, etc. or any other extrinsic, socially determined factors?” As noted above, judging from the website of the American Psychological Association, the answer is “none,” but only a single study is offered to buttress this claim—Evelyn Hooker’s, now almost fifty years o ld. Yet Susan Cochran, apparently also both a co -author (along with Gregory Herek) and self -cited authority of the brief, has performed a linked series of very careful, extensive large -scale controlled field studies addressing precisely this question. (In my judgment, Cochran is herself a 16 See Hooker, Evelyn, Reflections of a 40-Year Exploration: A Scientific View on Homosexuality American Psychologist, April 1993 Vol. 48, No. 4, 450-453. In spite of the title, there is nothing at all scientific in this article’s contents. Hooker simply muses as a leftist in the McCarthy era about how she spent her career hoping that someone would eventually find evidence to support the claims she published in her infamous 1957 article. Apart from that she rails at the McCarthy Committee who did terrible things to the gay artistic community in Los Angeles to whom she was personally committed, much of which, between the lines is inarguably heart -rending even if four decades later. She died three years after this “scientific view” was published.