The Limits and Lies of Human Genetic Research: Dangers For Social Policy

3 Responses to “The Limits and Lies of Human Genetic Research: Dangers For Social Policy”

1. Terence Sullivan says:

   October 2, 2010 at 11:03 am

   This is a very vital book that should be read by anyone who rejects the thought that our genes determine who we are. Kaplan systematically undermines the claims that there are, for example, ‘genes for’ intelligence, homosexuality, mental illness, obesity or committing crimes. Moreover, he clearly identifies the very limited nature of contemporary genetic research.

   But Kaplan’s main concern lies in challenging the ways in which claims about the supposedly genetic causes of human behavior and physiology get used in political and legal choice-making. So he argues that the search for a ‘criminal gene’ reinforces the thought that violence and criminality are the problem of the individual. Also, the creation of depression as a genetic disease makes depression out to be only the result of a biochemical disorder of the brain and entirely disassociates it from society at large. The top here being that if criminality or mental illness are the result of our genetic make-up, if they are internal to the individual, then capitalism cannot be to blame for their prevalence, nor held responsible for doing something about them.

   Kaplan’s marshalling of evidence hostile to the much of the research itself is what makes this book so valuable. For example, Hamer famously found a marker on the X chromosome which was highly correlated with male homosexuality in the populace he considered. But, Kaplan points out that a 1999 study failed to authenticate Hamer’s consequences. Further, despite the strength of the supposed correlation, no gene has been located, let lonely a biochemical pathway by which it is supposed to have its effect.

   Another of Kaplan’s criticisms of the homosexuality ‘marker’ is one that he argues applies to all human genetic research. Such research looks at the current make-up of a particular populace, the particular environment of the populace and the particular ways the various member organisms of the populace are distributed within the environment. But, if any of these factors exchange the result in question can, and often does, exchange as well. In small, genetic research is a local measure that provides very small basis for the general claims that are implied by talk of a ‘gene for’ homosexuality or any other complex human behaviour.

   Kaplan also takes on the claim that intelligence is coded in our genes. Here the evidence presented is some of the most striking in the whole book, especially where he challenges Murray and Herrnstein’s The Bell Curve. Their claim is that an individual’s social standing is based on how intelligent they are, which in turn is supposedly incorrigible by performances on IQ tests. So, for example, differences in social standing between blacks and whites are supposedly due to differences in intelligence. Even as you don’t need to read Kaplan’s book to know that this is nonsense, he does provide the detailed evidence to show just how bankrupt and biased IQ testing is. For example, he notes that blacks who are told they are taking an IQ test significantly underperform compared to those who are not and that merely being questioned to state one’s race lowers the average scores of blacks but not whites.

   This book clearly demonstrates that it is not our genes that clarify why people commit crimes or fall mentally ill, why it’s seen to matter whether people sleep with the opposite sex or their own, or why different ethnic groups honest worse than others. Given the limits of what bestow genetic research can tell us about who we are, Kaplan argues that we should look elsewhere for guidance in setting social policy, to the social nature of these issues. And even as Kaplan does not explicitly suggest a collective response to these matters this is clearly where his arguments lead.
   Rating: 5 / 5
2. Greg Nigh says:

   October 2, 2010 at 12:24 pm

   I agree that the title is unfortunate. It doesn’t convey that the book is a very scholarly and painstakingly referenced review of the “evidence” that genes contribute to the behaviors or conditions they are credited for. Kaplan spares no study which purports to suggest a genetic origin of several human behaviors or conditions: criminality, homosexuality, depression, IQ, obesity and others. He picks apart the research meticulously, and his conclusions are supported by a wealth of data.

   I highly urge this book to anyone working or interested in the fields of broadcast health, medicine or genetics. Futher, this book is vital for anyone who falls below one of the social designations Kaplan includes in his review. Though the text is laden with references and can be tedious to read, it is yet another significant blow to the notion of genetic determinism.
   Rating: 5 / 5
3. Herbert Gintis says:

   October 2, 2010 at 1:55 pm

   The Standard Social Sciences Develop (SSSM), effectively universally accepted in social science in the last half of the 20th Century, held that the human mind was a behavioral blank slate, so that human behavior may possibly be determined by cultural socialization. For instance, all differences between men and women were considered cultural, and the talents, aptitude, and personality of individuals was attributed absolutely to their upbringing.

   That develop has been repeatedly falsified in recent years through a wide array of empirical data. Moreover, our increasing ability to located the neurological bases of human sociality and to learn the genetic bases for some diseases has led to a complete turn-nearly in the broadcast perception of the relative importance of genes and environment in influencing human behavior and health.

   The well loved understanding of these scientific advances often takes the form of “its hereditary, so there’s nothing we can do about it.” This book is a serious and informed attempt to show that this interpretation is dead incorrect. The book is not light reading—it takes sincerely the task at hand, and it assumes the reader is willing to follow a complex scientific argument. But by doing so, the reader will be well rewarded.

   The main top of the book is this: the fact that something is hereditary to a given degree says something about the interaction of people with their environment. When heredity is high (as in the case of height, or IQ) it does not mean that we cannot find environments in which we can increase people’s height, or match their IQ’s. Moreover, to a significant extent, people make their own environments (niches), which appear mathematically as a product of genes, but misleadingly so.

   For instance, height is highly heritable, but succeeding generations of Americans are consistently taller than their parents. IQ is heritable, but IQ scores rise dramatically from generation to generation (the Flynn effect).

   The new genetic research should not make us conservative and defeatist as regards the possibilities of improving the welfare of humanity, but rather guide and inform us in how to search for more effective environmental interventions.

   There are problems with Kaplan’s book, but, and they are serious. First, he blames the common broadcast view of the matter on the researchers (“Lies”), when nearly all in the field (including me) agree wholly with his analysis, and say it again and again in print! Kaplan considers the new research something of a aptly wing conspiracy hostile to the welfare state, which is just nonesense. He trots out the book by Herrnstein and Murray again and again as an example, when he must know that effectively the whole behavioral genetics community has criticized it vigorously. There are NO examples in his book, as far as I can tell, where the researchers are at fault.

   In fact, I see this reaction to behavioral genetics a lot from well-intentioned, progressive people, who wish we were back in the Excellent Ancient Days of the SSSM, where proper socialization and spending bounty of money were considered sufficient to solve social problems. Well, it just ain’t so. We will not get social policy on track in eliminating poverty, sexism, racism, or any of the other ills that Kaplan (and I) bemoan, until we work out the proper interaction of human nature, genetic potential, and environmental interaction. Just criticizing the scientists won’t get us anywhere, I am worried.
   Rating: 4 / 5