Hate is everywhere, but the fundamental question of why one person can hate another has never been adequately studied, contends Jim Mohr of Gonzaga University, who is developing a new academic field of hate studies.

The goal is to explain a condition that has plagued humanity since one caveman looked askance at another.

“What makes hate tick?” Mohr, director of Gonzaga’s Institute for Action Against Hate, wondered. “How can we stop it?”

Gonzaga founded the institute a decade ago after some black law students received threatening letters. It has since started a Journal of Hate Studies, hosted a conference and offered its first class on hatred last spring.

The hope is that other universities will follow suit, said Ken Stern of the American Jewish Committee in New York, who has been involved in the effort. “We wanted to approach hate more intelligently,” he said.

Stern, who has spent 20 years battling anti-Semitism, said the need for hate studies became obvious when people started fighting groups like the Aryan Nations, which once flourished in this area. Opponents galvanized against the Aryans, but didn’t really know how best to fight them, Stern said.

“We were flying by the seat of our pants,” he said. “There was no testable theory.”

There is not even a good definition of hate, Stern contends.

Philosophers have offered numerous definitions: Rene Descartes said hate was the urge to withdraw from something that is thought bad. Aristotle saw hate as the incurable desire to annihilate an object.

In psychology, Sigmund Freud defined hate as an ego state that wishes to destroy the source of its unhappiness.

Gonzaga, a Jesuit university best known for its basketball team, offered a class on the subject taught by five professors from different disciplines.

Student Kayla De Los Reyes was in that class, and said the information both horrified her and gave her hope.

“Hate is something that is part of the human emotional makeup,” she said. “Everyone feels it at one point or another. You have to learn to control it.”

The goal is to create an academic home where a variety of disciplines, including history, psychology, religious studies, anthropology and political science, can be brought together to focus on hate. It’s the same sort of effort that led to the creation of disciplines like black studies or women’s studies, Mohr said.

Such academic efforts are not without controversy. Some skeptics fear they are little more than attacks on the dominant power structure.

“This stuff tends to be one dimensional and presumes the guilt of an archetypal white male,” said Glenn Ricketts, spokesman for the National Association of Scholars.

Indeed, De Los Reyes said one of the more interesting topics in the class involved white privilege. The most recent Journal of Hate Studies contained articles about oppression of gays, Nazi experiments on Jews, the local battle against Aryan Nations, and Muslim support for suicide bombings.

Heather Veeder, a graduate assistant for the institute, said the organization has an important mission.

“Hate thrives in areas not illuminated by education,” she said.

But Stern said it is too easy to blame ignorance for hate. People can have plenty of knowledge about something and still hate it, he said. The problem is when one person or group can separate another person or group from their humanity, thinking of them as an “other,” Stern said.

“We dehumanize them and justify violence against them,” Stern said.

There is no simple answer to why people hate, Mohr said. Hate can be sparked by greed, or fear, or a tribe bonding together in opposition to another. People looking to belong will hate others to fit into a group, he said.

With all the political conflict in the United States, it can seem that hate is on the rise. Some people seem to hate President Obama. Some hate Muslims. Some hate homosexuals.

But Mohr said he wouldn’t pursue a field of hate studies if he didn’t think something positive could be achieved.

“We can change,” Mohr said. “There has to be hope.”

The study released by a think tank based at UCLA also found that Utah and Wyoming were among the states with the highest percentages of gay spouses in 2008, despite being heavily conservative states with no laws providing legal recognition of gay relationships.

The data from the annual American Community Survey showed that nearly 150,000 same-sex couples in the U.S., or more than one in four, referred to one another as “husband” or “wife,” although UCLA researchers estimate that no more than 32,000 of the couples were legally married.

The couples had an average age of 52 and household incomes of $91,558, while 31 percent were raising children. That compares with an average age of 50, household income of $95,075 and 43 percent raising children for married heterosexual couples.

“It’s intrinsically interesting that same-sex couples who use the term spouses look like opposite-sex married couples even with a characteristic like children,” said Gary Gates, the UCLA demographer who conducted the analysis. “Most proponents of traditional marriage will say that when you allow these couples to marry, you are going to change the fundamental nature of marriage by decoupling it from procreation. Clearly, in the minds of same-sex couples who are marrying or think of themselves as married, you are not decoupling child-rearing from marriage.”

Gates said the report is the first to reliably compare same-sex couples who identify as married with gays who say they’re in unmarried partnerships and with married opposite-sex couples.

In the past, same-sex couples who referred to one another as “husband” or “wife” automatically were recorded as unmarried partners, a step gay rights activists lobbied the Census Bureau to eliminate as more states have legalized same-sex unions.

Unsurprisingly, Massachusetts, where gay couples have been able to get married since 2004, had the highest proportion of same-sex couples who were either legally married or considered themselves married, 3.63 for every 1,000 households. Vermont, which allowed same-sex couples to enter in civil unions with all the rights and obligations of marriage in 1999 and made same-sex marriages legal this year, came in second, with a rate of 2.71 per 1,000.

But Hawaii, Utah and Wyoming – states with neither civil unions nor same-sex marriage – came in next, ahead of California, Nevada, Connecticut, New Jersey and Rhode Island. What accounts for the phenomenon is unclear, but “it does provide this evidence that there are clearly couples in conservative parts of the country who do use these terms and do see their relationships in that framework.”

Melissa Bird, a 35-year-old Utah lobbyist, said she understood why her home state has so many same-sex couples who see themselves as married, even though the state government does not recognize them that way. Bird and her 26-year-old partner had a commitment ceremony two years ago in Utah that wasn’t legally binding. They tied the knot legally in California last year before voters approved a gay marriage ban.

“There is very much a marriage mentality here in Utah,” said Bird, whom considers her partner her wife. “We know a lot of people who get ‘married’ in quotes. It never crossed our minds not to do it.”

Once same-sex couples who labeled themselves as unmarried partners were factored in, however, the geographic distribution changed significantly. The District of Columbia came in first, with same-sex couples – both unmarried partners and those who called themselves married – representing 14.12 of every 1,000 households. Maine, where voters on Tuesday will decide whether to repeal a law that legalized same-sex marriage, was next, with gay couples heading up a little more than eight of every 1,000 households.

Although the report includes the first official estimates for the number of same-sex couples who call themselves wives or husbands, Gates said collecting accurate data on the marital status of gay couples remains difficult because of the hodgepodge of laws affecting their relationships. In addition, many couples may be reluctant to identify themselves as such if their neighbors, families and employers do not know they are gay, he said.

The Census Bureau has promised to produce a report on the marital status of gay couples after the once-a-decade national census is completed next year. However, the bureau said there was too little time to change the questionnaire to separate out legally married gay couples in the nationwide tally.

Yet, the findings are exciting to scientists, who think they may show how to make a better vaccine.

The results also hint that the vaccine may work better in the general population than in those at higher risk of infection, such as gay men and intravenous drug users. It was the first time an AIDS vaccine was tested mostly in heterosexuals at average risk, and doctors have long known that how a person is exposed to HIV affects the odds of becoming infected.

“This study becomes a landmark. You can put it on a map and begin to figure out where you go from here,” said Col. Jerome Kim, the U.S. Army doctor who co-led the trial.

Last month, researchers announced that a two-vaccine combination cut the risk of becoming infected with HIV by more than 31 percent in a trial of more than 16,000 volunteers in Thailand.

Full results, published online Tuesday by the New England Journal of Medicine and presented at a scientific conference in Paris, include two additional analyses that merely suggest the vaccine is beneficial, rather than providing definitive proof.

That’s mostly because so few participants became infected – only 125 people, 10 times less than in previous HIV vaccine trials, said Dr. Anthony Fauci, director the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the study’s main sponsor.

Critics had leaked one of the analyses last week, saying it showed the original results may have been a fluke. A California-based AIDS advocacy group criticized study leaders for not giving a fuller picture when they held their news conference last month.

“The bottom line is that those results are real,” even though they are not good enough to justify using this vaccine now, said Dr. Alan Bernstein, executive director of the Global HIV Vaccine Enterprise, an alliance of governments, AIDS scientists, the World Health Organization and funders such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

“We, for the first time, have evidence of protection, and the nitty gritty (arguments) to me don’t matter a damn,” Bernstein said.

Other scientists who, like Bernstein, had no role in the trial, agreed.

“It’s a consistent story. There seems to be some effect. And I think it is an important study. It redirects the field to look at a different kind of vaccine and different kinds of immune responses” than what have been the focus in the past, said Dr. Lawrence Corey of the University of Washington. He heads the HIV Vaccine Trials Network, an international group of scientists who test vaccines.

The Thailand Ministry of Public Health conducted this trial, which used vaccines made from strains of HIV common in Thailand. They are ALVAC, made by Sanofi Pasteur, and AIDSVAX, originally developed by VaxGen Inc. and now held by the nonprofit Global Solutions for Infectious Diseases. The vaccines are not made from whole virus and cannot cause HIV infection.

The combo was tested in HIV-negative Thai men and women ages 18 to 30 at average risk of becoming infected. Half received four doses of ALVAC and two of AIDSVAX over six months; the rest received dummy shots. All were given condoms and counseling, and were followed for three years after vaccination ended.

New infections occurred in 51 of the 8,197 given vaccine and in 74 of the 8,198 who received dummy shots. That worked out to a 31 percent lower risk of infection for the vaccine group.

In a smaller analysis of just the 12,452 participants who received all six shots exactly on schedule, there were 86 infections – 36 in the vaccine group and 50 in those given dummy shots.

The vaccine appeared nearly twice as effective among those at low or moderate risk for HIV, versus people who share needles, have contact with prostitutes or engage in other risky behaviors. But those results were not statistically significant, meaning they could have occurred by chance.

“Perhaps the requirements for protection against transmission in low-risk heterosexual persons are considerably different or less stringent,” Dr. Raphael Dolin of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston wrote in an editorial published by the medical journal.

Evidence of vaccine protection emerged at six months to one year and then seemed to wane, although this trend, too, was not statistically significant.

“It would suggest the vaccine is not that potent,” although there were too few infections in either group to make solid comparisons, said Dr. Seth Berkley, president of the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, which helps develop and assess potential vaccines.

The U.S. Army has long had a partnership with Thailand and its Royal Army to test vaccines and medicines to protect troops and the general population. Soaring rates of HIV infection a decade ago led the Thai government to make vaccine research a high priority. Some previous experimental AIDS vaccines have been tested in Thailand as well.

Over the past year, support for civil unions has grown significantly among those who oppose same-sex marriage while remaining stable among those who favor same-sex marriage. At the same time, opponents of same-sex marriage continue to outnumber supporters overall. Conducted Aug. 11-27 among 4,013 adults, the poll finds that 53% oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally, compared with 39% who support same-sex marriage, numbers that are virtually unchanged over the past year.

Supporters of same-sex marriage are divided over the best way to pursue its legalization; 45% favor pushing hard to legalize it as soon as possible, while 42% of same-sex marriage advocates say they should not push too hard to legalize same-sex marriages right away because this might risk creating a backlash against gays and lesbians.

The poll also finds that half of the public (49%) says homosexual behavior is morally wrong, while 9% say it is morally acceptable and 35% say it is not a moral issue. Those who say it is morally wrong are significantly less supportive of same-sex marriage and civil unions.

The report, including an executive summary, methodology and topline questionnaire, is available online. Additional results from the survey will be released in subsequent reports.

This survey is a joint effort of the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. Both are projects of the Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan “fact tank” that provides information on the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world.

The World Health Organization and the U.N. agency UNAIDS said the results “instilled new hope” in the field of HIV vaccine research.

The vaccine – a combination of two previously unsuccessful vaccines – cut the risk of becoming infected with HIV by more than 31 percent in the world’s largest AIDS vaccine trial of more than 16,000 volunteers in Thailand, researchers announced Thursday in Bangkok.

Even though the benefit is modest, “it’s the first evidence that we could have a safe and effective preventive vaccine,” Col. Jerome Kim told The Associated Press. He helped lead the study for the U.S. Army, which sponsored it with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

The institute’s director, Dr. Anthony Fauci, warned that this is “not the end of the road,” but said he was surprised and very pleased by the outcome.

“It gives me cautious optimism about the possibility of improving this result” and developing a more effective AIDS vaccine, Fauci said. “This is something that we can do.”

The Thailand Ministry of Public Health conducted the study, which used strains of HIV common in Thailand. Whether such a vaccine would work against other strains in the U.S., Africa or elsewhere in the world is unknown, scientists stressed.

Even a marginally helpful vaccine could have a big impact. Every day, 7,500 people worldwide are newly infected with HIV; 2 million died of AIDS in 2007, UNAIDS estimates.

“Today marks a historic milestone,” said Mitchell Warren, executive director of the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, an international group that has worked toward developing a vaccine.

“It will take time and resources to fully analyze and understand the data, but there is little doubt that this finding will energize and redirect the AIDS vaccine field,” he said in a statement.

The study tested the two-vaccine combination in a “prime-boost” approach, in which the first one primes the immune system to attack HIV and the second one strengthens the response.

They are ALVAC, from Sanofi Pasteur, the vaccine division of French drugmaker Sanofi-Aventis; and AIDSVAX, originally developed by VaxGen Inc. and now held by Global Solutions for Infectious Diseases, a nonprofit founded by some former VaxGen employees.

ALVAC uses canarypox, a bird virus altered so it can’t cause human disease, to ferry synthetic versions of three HIV genes into the body. AIDSVAX contains a genetically engineered version of a protein on HIV’s surface. The vaccines are not made from whole virus – dead or alive – and cannot cause HIV.

Neither vaccine in the study prevented HIV infection when tested individually in earlier trials, and dozens of scientists had called the new one futile when it began in 2003.

“I really didn’t have high hopes at all that we would see a positive result,” Fauci confessed.

The results proved the skeptics wrong.

“The combination is stronger than each of the individual members,” said the Army’s Kim, a physician who manages the Army’s HIV vaccine program.

The study tested the combo in HIV-negative Thai men and women aged 18 to 30 at average risk of becoming infected. Half received four “priming” doses of ALVAC and two “boost” doses of AIDSVAX over six months. The others received dummy shots. No one knew who got what until the study ended.

Thanad Yomha, a 33-year-old electrician from southeastern Thailand, said he didn’t expect anything in return for volunteering for the project.

“I did this for others,” Thanad said. “It’s for the next generation.”

All were given condoms, counseling and treatment for any sexually transmitted infections, and were tested every six months for HIV. Any who became infected were given free treatment with antiviral medicines.

Participants were followed for three years after vaccination ended.

The results: New infections occurred in 51 of the 8,197 given vaccine and in 74 of the 8,198 who received dummy shots. That worked out to a 31 percent lower risk of infection for the vaccine group. Two of the infected participants who received the placebo died.

The vaccine had no effect on levels of HIV in the blood for those who did become infected. That had been another goal of the study – seeing whether the vaccine could limit damage to the immune system and help keep infected people from developing full-blown AIDS.

That result is “one of the most important and intriguing findings of this trial,” Fauci said. It suggests that the signs scientists have been using to gauge whether a vaccine was actually giving protection may not be valid.

“It is conceivable that we haven’t even identified yet” what really shows immunity, which is both “important and humbling” after decades of vaccine research, Fauci said.

Details of the $105 million study will be given at a vaccine conference in Paris in October.

This is the third big vaccine trial since 1983, when HIV was identified as the cause of AIDS. In 2007, Merck & Co. stopped a study of its experimental vaccine after seeing it did not prevent HIV infection. Later analysis suggested the vaccine might even raise the risk of infection in certain men. The vaccine itself did not cause infection.

In 2003, AIDSVAX flunked two large trials – the first late-stage tests of any AIDS vaccine at the time.

It is unclear whether vaccine makers will seek to license the two-vaccine combo in Thailand. Before the trial began, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said other studies would be needed before the vaccine could be considered for U.S. licensing.

“This is a world first which proves that vaccine development is possible,” said Dr. Supachai Rerks-Ngarm, the Thai Health Ministry official who oversaw the trial. “But this is not to the level where we can license or manufacture the vaccine yet.”

Mass-producing the vaccine, plus how to proceed with future studies, will be discussed among the governments, study sponsors and companies involved in the trial, Kim said. Scientists want to know how long protection will last, whether booster shots will be needed, and whether the vaccine helps prevent infection in gay men and injection drug users, since it was tested mostly in heterosexuals in the Thai trial.

The study was done in Thailand because U.S. Army scientists did pivotal research in that country when the AIDS epidemic emerged there, isolating virus strains and providing genetic information on them to vaccine makers. The Thai government also strongly supported the idea of doing the study.

The report, “Degrees of Equality: A National Study Examining Workplace Climate for LGBT Employees,” found that, despite significant advances in employment policies at major U.S. corporations, a majority of LGBT workers continue to experience a range of negative consequences because of their sexual orientation and gender identity.  Younger workers are even more likely to hide their LGBT identity – only 5 percent of LGBT employees ages 18 to 24 say they are totally open at work, compared to more than 20 percent in older age cohorts.

The report is available for download at www.DegreesOfEquality.org.

“Overall attitudes towards LGBT people have come a long way, but we can’t forget that people still struggle at work and that this has a profound impact on LGBT workers’ careers,” said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign Foundation.  “Degrees of Equality helps us bridge the gap between policy and practice to fully understand LGBT workers’ experiences.  The more we understand the workplace, the more we can help usher it to a place where all employees can thrive.”

The study examined why workers chose to disclose their LGBT identity or not, how these issues arise in the workplace, the impact they have for businesses and what can be done to improve productivity and retention.  In recent years, businesses have engaged in sustained efforts to implement policies aimed at creating safe and productive workplaces for talented LGBT employees.  The number of companies that receive top ratings on the Human Rights Campaign Foundation Corporate Equality Index, for example, rose from just 13 in 2002 to 305 in the 2010 report released last week.

Nevertheless, significant numbers of LGBT employees continue to experience a negative workplace climate that affects productivity, retention and professional relationships.  At least once in the past year, 42 percent of LGBT employees report lying about their personal lives, 27 percent have felt distracted, 21 percent have job searched and 13 percent have stayed home from work as a result of working in an environment that is not always accepting of LGBT people.

As reasons for hiding their identities, 39 percent fear losing connections, 28 percent fear not being considered for advancement, 17 percent fear getting fired and more than one in ten (13 percent) fear for their personal safety.  Transgender workers are much more likely than other groups to report fearing for their personal safety – 40 percent compared to 20 percent of gay men.

And 42 percent of transgender workers feared getting fired if they revealed their LGBT identity, compared to 22 percent of gay men.

An employee’s sexual orientation or gender identity are often unavoidable in casual, non-work related conversations.  These conversations occur frequently and are an essential component to building productive work relationships.

At least once per week, 89 percent of LGBT employees say conversations about social lives, 80 percent confront conversations involving spouses, relationships and dating at least once per week and 50 percent say the topic of sex arises at least once a week.  These conversations are the most likely to make LGBT employees feel uncomfortable: fewer than half feel very comfortable talking about any of these topics.

Derogatory comments and jokes still happen at work and are a major indicator that it is unsafe to be open about their sexual orientation and/or gender identity at work.  A total of 58 percent of LGBT workers say someone at work makes a joke or derogatory comment about LGBT people at least once in a while.

Similarly, jokes and derogatory comments about other minority groups are equally indicative of a negative climate.  About two-thirds (62 percent) of LGBT employees say negative comments about minority groups are made at least once in a while at work.

Even with inclusive employment policies, significant numbers of employees report negative consequences of an unwelcoming environment for LGBT employees.  Moreover, the vast majority of LGBT workers do not report instances when they hear an anti-LGBT remark to HR or management.  On average, 67 percent ignore it or let it go, 9 percent raise the issue with a supervisor and only 5 percent go to HR.

“We’ve found that inclusive non-discrimination policies and equal benefits are the essential first step toward cultivating a productive and engaged LGBT employee, but they are not the last step,” said Daryl Herrschaft, director of the Workplace Project.  “By understanding how LGBT identity surfaces and unfolds in the workplace, we will be better able to turn policy into practice and address opportunities to improve productivity and retention of LGBT employees.”

The study is the cornerstone of a new project that will provide employers with a climate assessment tool and toolkits for improving their workplaces.

The HRC Foundation conducted 14 focus groups to examine current LGBT workplace experiences and identify key elements of workplace climate. Since there is no uniform LGBT experience, the diversity of the working LGBT community was accounted for by conducting focus groups around race, ethnicity and gender, among other sub-groupings.  In addition, the HRC Foundation commissioned the largest national survey of LGBT workplace experiences to date, administered to 761 LGBT workers from across the country.  Finally, in-depth interviews supplemented the research.

The research, presented at a conference Tuesday, is expected to influence the government’s first guidance on circumcision.

Circumcision “is not considered beneficial” in stopping the spread of HIV through gay sex, said Dr. Peter Kilmarx, of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

However, the CDC is still considering recommending it for other groups, including baby boys and high-risk heterosexual men.

UNAIDS and other international health organizations promote circumcision, the cutting away of the foreskin, as an important strategy for reducing the spread of the AIDS virus. There hasn’t been the same kind of push for circumcision in the United States.

For one thing, nearly 80 percent of American men are already circumcised – a much higher proportion than most other countries. Worldwide, the male circumcision rate is estimated at about 30 percent.

Also, while HIV spreads primarily through heterosexual sex in Africa and some other parts of the world, in the United States it has mainly infected gay men. Only about 4 percent of U.S. men are gay, according to preliminary CDC estimates released at the conference this week. But they account for more than half of the new HIV infections each year.

Previous research has suggested circumcision doesn’t make a difference when anal sex is involved. The latest study, by CDC researchers, looked at nearly 4,900 men who had anal sex with an HIV-infected partner and found the infection rate, about 3.5 percent, was approximately the same whether the men were circumcised or not.

Government recommendations on circumcision are still being written and may not be final until next year, following public comment. CDC doctors and many experts believe there is a good argument for recommending that baby boys and heterosexual men at a higher risk for HIV be circumcised.

The definition of “high risk” is still being discussed, said Kilmarx, chief of the epidemiology branch in the CDC’s HIV division.

Circumcision is a sensitive issue laden with cultural and religious meaning, particularly when babies are involved, Kilmarx acknowledged.

“It’s seen by many as more than just as medical procedure,” he said. It’s possible the government won’t make recommendations but instead will promote an education campaign for parents about the procedure’s potential benefits and risks, he added.

The prospect of the government promoting circumcision of infants has already drawn fire from an advocacy group called Intact America. The organization, based in Tarrytown, N.Y., parked a motorized billboard this week outside the hotel hosting the HIV conference, displaying the message: “Tell the CDC that circumcising babies doesn’t prevent HIV.”

“It’s removing healthy, functioning, sexual and protective tissue from a person who cannot consent. You’re mutilating a child,” said Georgeanne Chapin, the group’s executive director.

South Africa had about 5.2 million people living with HIV last year – the highest number of any country in the world. The government is under pressure to show its commitment to combat AIDS after years of official denial, neglect and unscientific responses that fueled the world’s worst AIDS crisis.

The South Africa HIV/AIDS Research and Innovation Platform (SHARP) aims to back research including studies on new or improved treatments, drug design, gene research and vaccines.

The Department of Science and Technology has pledged 45 million rand ($5.8 million) over the next three years to fund nine research proposals.

South Africa launched an AIDS vaccine created by its own researchers last week but the proud moment was marred when it emerged that state funding for the trial had been halted.

Science and Technology Minister Naledi Pandor on Tuesday denied that the government had “dumped” funding AIDS vaccines but said it wanted to take a broader approach to the problem.

“The actual development of an effective vaccine will take many more years and the collaborative efforts of our country’s best scientists,” Pandor said. “In the meantime, South Africa is investigating every possible avenue to beat the virus.”

The health department, not the science department, said it will spend 12 million rand ($1.5 million) on the vaccine initiative.

Research into an AIDS vaccine has run into so many problems that some experts have questioned sinking scarce funds into developing a vaccine, saying the money might be better spent on prevention and education.

The study, done by Hyeouk Chris Hahm, an assistant professor at Boston University School of Social Work, and Chris Adkins, an HIV/AIDS clinical social worker, showed that many factors affect young LGBT Asian Americans. According to the United Press International, these factors include “central societal stresses including the role of family life, personal sacrifice for family tranquility and generational clashes, as well as external factors such as racism, sexism and acculturation.”

For many, a choice must be made between maintaining an ethnic identity and repressing their sexuality or face being rejected by their family and come out.

According to Science Daily:

“Often, the result for both young men and women is to mask homosexual behaviors and avoid alienating their family and parents’ communities. In their relationships with others, they often have to decide which identity will take precedence: an ethnic or sexual identity.”

Chimpanzees are the first primate besides man shown to get sick in the wild in significant numbers from a virus related to HIV. Chimps are also man’s closest relative among primates.

And chimps are already endangered.

But the discovery of the disease killing chimps may help doctors come up with better treatments or a workable vaccine for humans, experts said.

The monkey version of the virus that causes AIDS is called simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV), but most apes and monkeys that have it show no symptoms or illness. So “if we could figure out why the monkeys don’t get sick, perhaps we could apply that to people,” said study lead author Beatrice Hahn, a professor of medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

The nine-year study of chimps in their natural wild habitat at Gombe National Park in Tanzania found chimps infected with SIV had a death rate 10 to 16 times higher than uninfected chimps. And necropsies of dead infected chimps showed unusually low counts of T-cell white blood proteins that are just like the levels found in humans with AIDS, Hahn said in a phone interview.

And when scientists looked at the particular strain, they found that it was the closest relative possible to the virus that first infected humans.

“From an evolutionary and epidemiological point of view, these data can be regarded as a ‘missing link’ in the history of the HIV pandemic,” AIDS researcher Dr. Daniel Douek of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases wrote in an e-mail. Douek was not involved in the Nature study.

Monkeys and apes – except for chimps – seem to survive the virus because of some kind of evolutionary adaptation, probably on the cell receptors, Douek wrote. The infection of chimps is more recent so they haven’t adapted, he wrote.

Hahn said chimps and people probably caught the virus the same way, by eating infected monkeys. And they both spread it the same way, through sexual activity.

Many factors are causing Africa’s chimp population to dwindle, said study co-author Michael Wilson, a professor of anthropology at the University of Minnesota and former director of field research at the Jane Goodall Institute in Tanzania. Hunting, loss of habitat and disease are decreasing chimp numbers and it’s hard to figure out how much of a factor SIV is, he said.

“It is a concern,” Wilson said. “The last thing these chimps need is another source of mortality.”

Wilson, who spent years observing chimps in Tanzania as part of the study, said that when researchers realized the virus was fatal and they knew which chimps were infected, it became hard to watch some of their activities in the wild.

He recalled wanting to warn one female chimp, “Don’t mate with those guys.” Wilson said. “But of course I can’t do that.”