in "the science of desire" (1994), the geneticist dean hamer credited levay with presenting evidence that supported the conclusion that inah 3 is connected to male sexual behavior in non-human animals. the queer theorist robert mcruer compared "the sexual brain" to the political scientist charles murray and the psychologist richard herrnstein's "the bell curve" (1994), arguing that just as murray and herrnstein presented inequality as inevitable rather than the consequence of economic institutions that could be changed, levay failed to question the institution of heterosexuality. the philosopher timothy f. murphy maintained in "gay science" (1997) that levay failed to show conclusively that the differences in brain structure he found between gay men and straight men were not due to aids. the biologist steven rose criticized the publicity that surrounded the publication of "the sexual brain", arguing that levay over-stated the importance of his findings, behavior which rose considered similar to that of researchers such as hamer. rose noted that the sexual orientation of the men in levay's hypothalamus study was presumed rather than demonstrated. the classicist bruce thornton questioned the value of levay's work, writing that while levay asserted that the future would bring progress in understanding the development of sexuality, it was uncertain what good such knowledge would accomplish.