The new field of social genomics can be used by progressives to combat racial inequality or by conservatives to excuse it.
Over the past decade, economists, sociologists and psychologists have begun collaborating with geneticists to investigate how genomic differences among human beings are linked to differences in their behaviours and social outcomes. The insights sought are wide-ranging: why do some of us have a greater sense of subjective wellbeing than others? Why do some go further in school than others? When it comes to income, why do some people earn more and others less?
As surprising as it might be to readers familiar with the history of often-ugly efforts to investigate complex behaviours and outcomes through genetics, some prominent members of this new cohort of researchers are optimistic that their work will advance progressive political agendas. According to the progressive authors of a recent European Commission report, insights from what I call ‘social genomics’ are ‘fully compatible with agendas that aim to combat inequalities and that embrace diversity.’
Indeed, findings from social genomics are compatible with what we in the United States consider Left-leaning agendas to combat inequalities. They are, however, equally compatible with what we think of as Right-leaning agendas that accept – or make peace with – inequalities. Moreover, such findings are as compatible with a Right-leaning version of ‘embracing diversity’ as they are with a Left-leaning one. This should move Left-leaning social genomicists to curb their optimism about the potential of their research to advance their political agendas.
posted by f.sheikh
Like most other articles/essays that Dr. Fayyaz posts from Aeon, this one is also VERY long but very interesting and insightful.
Personally, I am someone who believes that genetic determinism plays an overwhelming majority role in social outcomes with environment playing a minor role in a minority of cases. . I get a kick out of how these social geneticists/ethicists tip toe over egg shells when they are confronted with the truth and results from their own data that do not conform to their beliefs, because to them accepting such inferences would be politically incorrect.
So even though the whole thrust of article is to establish that environment plays a major role in social outcomes (see para 13) in para”s 15 &16 they are faced with a different conclusion.Instead of using “politically incorrect” words like intelligence and smartness they have come up with “polygenic scores”. .And just read para’s 17 and 18. And make your own judgements.; they agree that educational interventions tailored to address environmental factors have not worked to improve results; that they need to focus on interventions tailored to genetic endowments.
In para 27 they finally seem to accept the truth. Problem is that a child’s home environment at least is very closely tied to his/her genes – his/her genetic heritage that is. A child with low polygenic score is usually born of parent/s of low polygenic scores.
And there are many more contradictions between what they want to prove and their own data. In order not to make my comment too long I am leaving a link to a book on a related topic that you can read if you are interested ; personally, I agree with the title and the content (to a large extent) of the book.
https://www.amazon.com/Bad-Students-Not-Schools/dp/141281345X
Shoeb Amin
You have read a lot on this topic and are more knowledgeable. What do you think about that Genes also undergo evolution under environmental influence but it takes decades for it to exhibit itself? The experiments of changing environment are bad predictors unless they are carried over decades and not short time. I recently read fiction novels by new black authors and was really impressed by their philosophical discussion, command of language, and how to grasp one’s imagination and attention. In my opinion their writing was even better than many of the great novels by white authors. There are many such black authors now. I think change of environment over decades, even though still not ideal, has started to show its evolutionary impact on genes.
Fayyaz
Dr. Fayyaz,
I think you are referring to the science of EPIGENETICS, which really says that genes have on and off “switches” and our environment makes them go on/off DURING ONE’S OWN LIFETIME. This is different from genetic changes that occur during evolution which occur over hundreds or thousands of years. To illustrate epigenetic with a very simple example epigenetic proposes that you may be born with genes that would make you very smart but that some adverse environmental factor/s turns the switch off those genes that code for smartness and now that child has become dull because of his/her environment; essentially saying we are all born more or less the same, it’s the environment that decides our social outcomes. Here is a link if you want to learn more about epigenetics:
https://www.cdc.gov/genomics/disease/epigenetics.htm
My problem with with epigenetic proponents is they claim such switching on/off only occurs in certain genes but not for others depending on which ones are conforming to their thinking. In your original article the author claim schizophrenia is not due to parental (environmental) factors “because that would be cruel to the parents”. Actually schizophrenia, though mostly gene dependent , can be exacerbated or precipitated by environmental factors. Hope I answered your question at least partly.
Shoeb