̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge - Daphne Martschenko

Biosocial science: ̽��ֱ��murky history of the nature and nurture debate

ljm67 — Mon, 23 Jan 2017 09:19:53 +0000

Self-righteousness, gratitude, sympathy, sincerity, and guilt – what if these social behaviours are biologically influenced, encoded within our genes and shaped by the forces of evolution to promote the survival of the human species? Does free will truly exist if our genes are inherited and our environment is a series of events set in motion before we are born?

American biologist E O Wilson made these arguments when he published Sociobiology: ̽��ֱ��New Synthesis in 1975 and On Human Nature in 1978. Wilson is the father of sociobiology, a field that believes social behaviour in animals, including humans, is biologically determined – partially shaped by genes and the forces of evolution. Time magazine picked up the emerging new scientific field, dedicating the August 1977 cover to “Sociobiology: A New Theory of Behavior.”

Today, it is a field still shrouded with controversy, but one which is offering new views on how our environment influences who we are and what we do.

Likened to eugenics

At its conception, sociobiology ignited heated criticism from prominent biologists including Stephen Jay Gould and Robert Lewontin. They argued that the field was biologically determinist and perpetuated eugenic ideologies that sought to legitimise racial and social hierarchies. As critics pointed out, while “sociobiology” as a formal field did not come into existence until the 1970s, research that used biological explanations to justify social phenomena was not new.

To figures such as Gould and Lewontin, this “biosocial” scientific language lived in the fields of physical anthropology and eugenics. In the early 20th century, eugenicists like Madison Grant had used this kind of language to explain and justify class and race hierarchies. Supporters of such ideas used them to advocate for social policies prohibiting class and racial mixing, and restrictions on immigration.

Biosocial science was soon used as a guise for the eugenics movement. ̽��ֱ��American Eugenics Society changed its name in 1972 to the Society for the Study of Social Biology, three years before the field of “sociobiology” was formally established. ̽��ֱ��society’s official journal Eugenics Quarterly, whose first volume in 1954 focused heavily on IQ differences between population groups, changed its name to Social Biology in 1969. It continues to exist today under the name of Biodemography and Social Biology.

Social life in ‘molecular terms’

Sociobiology has also influenced the development of “sociogenomics” – a term coined in 2005 by molecular biologist Gene Robinson whose work examines the genetic mechanisms governing social behaviour in the honeybee. Though early sociogenomics work focused primarily on insect populations, the field has moved to include an examination of human populations.

Sociogenomics is a field driven by two desires. ̽��ֱ��first is to identify the genes and pathways that regulate aspects of development, physiology and behaviour that in turn influence the way animals or humans develop social links and form cooperative communities. ̽��ֱ��second is to determine how these genes and pathways themselves are influenced by social life and social evolution. Yet in practice, these two main components of sociogenomics research seem to be in conflict.

One side tries to identify genetic markers associated with behaviours commonly thought to be shaped by social interactions. Researchers have looked at everything from political orientation to educational attainment and antisocial behaviour linked to criminality.

Some studies have sought to find genetic variations linked to social phenomena like social deprivation and household income. One study claimed to have identified common genetic variations that can explain up to 21% of the observed differences in social deprivation between individuals.

Such research has, however, garnered some more recent criticism from researchers critical of the underlying methods used and the field’s ethical implications.

Nature and nurture

̽��ֱ��other side of sociogenomics examines how the environment moderates what’s called “gene expression”. This is the process by which genes are “activated” to synthesise proteins that allow the genotype (an individual’s genetic makeup) to give rise to a phenotype (an observed behaviour or trait).

Not just one or the other. Stuart Miles/shutterstock.com

In this form of sociogenomics, the classical argument of “nature versus nurture” becomes more clearly a matter of both “nature and nurture”. Social or environmental conditions such as low social status, social isolation or low socioeconomic status have been found to change the expression of hundreds of genes in both animals and humans.

This is now considered by some to be potentially transformative in our approach to addressing inequality. For example, biosocial research which shows how structural or environmental aspects influence biological processes could throw much needed weight behind socially-oriented policies. On the other hand, biosocial researchers might argue that rather than fix what’s happening in society, we could focus on trying to treat biological deficits.

“Gene x environment” studies, as they are called, have found that in the US, low socioeconomic status represses an individual’s genetic potential. This means, for example, that the high estimates for genetic influence on educational attainment may only fully apply to those living in well-off circumstances, where money, status, and comfort are not pressing concerns.

Mixing the hard and social sciences

Some advocates for the biosocial sciences believe the social sciences will become more robust and more highly regarded with the incorporation of genetics research. There are sociologists, economists, and political scientists who are already beginning to bring genetic analyses into their work. They argue that this additional data may help the social sciences “better understand patterns of human behavior, enhance individuals’ self-understanding, and design optimal public policy”.

Such mixing of the traditionally hard and social sciences has produced studies in sociogenomics examining how high taxation of tobacco products meant to discourage people from purchasing harmful products may not be beneficial for those with a particular variant of the nicotine receptor that might make them willing to pay more for tobacco. It has also contributed to research looking at cortisol levels in young ethnic-minorities as they note racism or discrimination. This work has highlighted how everyday micro-aggressions and social inequality can have real and harmful biological consequences.

These studies point to the continued desire to explain social phenomena through biology. As the biosocial sciences continue the journey to analyse everyday human life and behaviour, they have the potential to have a profound impact – both positive and negative – on our understandings of how we as individuals and we as a society operate.

Daphne Martschenko, PhD Candidate, ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge

This article was originally published on ̽��ֱ��Conversation. Read the original article.

̽��ֱ��idea that social behaviours are biologically influenced is controversial, but may provide new views on how our environment influences who we are and what we do, writes Daphne Martschenko from the Faculty of Education.

MIKI Yoshihito

̽��ֱ��National Museum of Emerging Science and Innovation.

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

Opinion: Can genes really predict how well you’ll do academically?

Anonymous — Tue, 26 Jul 2016 10:26:13 +0000

Researchers at King’s College London say they are able to predict educational achievement from DNA alone. Using a new type of analysis called a “genome-wide polygenic score”, or GPS, they analysed DNA samples from 3,497 people in the ongoing Twins Early Development Study. They found that people whose DNA had the highest GPS score performed substantially better at school. In fact, by age 16, there was a whole school-grade difference between those with the highest GPS scores and the lowest. ̽��ֱ��researchers herald their findings as a “tipping point” in the ability to use DNA – and DNA alone – in predicting educational achievement.

These findings will certainly generate debate, particularly about nature versus nurture. It’s a debate that forces us – often uncomfortably – to think about what makes us who we are. Are our careers, hobbies, food preferences, income levels, emotional dispositions, or even general success in life rooted in our genes (nature)? Or are we shaped more by our environment (nurture)? If it’s all down to our genes, what happens to the idea of determining our own destiny?

When it comes to the subject of intelligence, which today includes behavioural genetics research into “g (a measure of intelligence commonly used as a variable in research in this area) and cognitive ability, the nature-nurture debate becomes that much more heated.

There is a growing body of research that suggests intelligence is a highly heritable and polygenic trait, meaning that there are many genes that predict intelligence, each with a small effect size. While the connection between genetics research on educational achievement and findings on intelligence might not seem direct, studies like the one out of King’s establishes a biological connection between “g” and educational achievement. ̽��ֱ��findings mark the strongest genetic prediction for educational achievement so far, estimating up to 9% of variance in educational achievement at age 16.

But despite claims that this research moves “us closer to the possibility of early intervention and personalised learning”, there are important ethical concerns to take into account. For example, who would early intervention and personalised learning reach first? Is it possible parents with money, means, awareness and access would be first to place their children in “genetically sensitive schools” in the hope of getting an extra advantage?

Dark past

It is not a secret that the history of intelligence research, and by extension genetics research on cognitive ability or educational achievement, is rooted in eugenics and racism, and has been used to validate the existence of racial and class differences. So how does this shameful past impact the field of behavioural genetics research today?

Many behavioural geneticists, like Robert Plomin, the senior author on the King’s study, believe the field has moved past this dark history and that the science is objective, neutral (as neutral as any research can be) and clear. ̽��ֱ��controversies that surround this research, at least in the eyes of Plomin and others, are fuelled by media sensationalism.

But many bioethicists and social scientists disagree with him. They argue that society values intelligence too much for this research to remain in neutral territory. Previously, the field was largely used to marginalise certain groups, particularly low-income or ethnic minority groups.

For some, attributing intelligence to genetics justifies the adverse circumstances many low-income and ethnic minority groups find themselves in; it wasn’t nurture that led to the under-performance of low-income or ethnic minority students in the classroom, it was nature, and nature cannot be changed. For bioethicists today, the question hanging over this branch of behavioural genetics is: who’s to say new research in this area won’t perpetuate the same social inequalities that similar work has done before?

Genetic research in an area once used to oppress people should openly acknowledge this past and explicitly state what its findings can and cannot prove (what many bioethicists call “trustworthy research”).

Stark class and race divides still persist in the UK and US, two countries where this branch of research is rapidly growing. While the study mentions the impact of a person’s place in society with educational achievement, it links this status back to genetics, highlighting the genetic overlap between educational achievement, g and family socioeconomic status.

̽��ֱ��possibility that this kind of research may influence attitudes towards certain ethnic minorities and the less well off is real, as is the risk that this work might be used to justify social inequality. These concerns should be admitted and addressed by behavioural geneticists. ̽��ֱ��alternative could be a new form of eugenics.

Daphne Martschenko, PhD Candidate, ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge

This article was originally published on ̽��ֱ��Conversation. Read the original article.

̽��ֱ��opinions expressed in this article are those of the individual author(s) and do not represent the views of the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge.

Daphne Martschenko (Faculty of Education) discusses whether DNA can predict our educational achievement.

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

Opinion: Genetics: what it is that makes you clever – and why it’s shrouded in controversy

Anonymous — Thu, 21 Apr 2016 11:00:00 +0000

For nearly 150 years, the concept of intelligence and its study have offered scientific ways of classifying people in terms of their “ability”. ̽��ֱ��drive to identify and quantify exceptional mental capacity may have a chequered history, but it is still being pursued by some researchers today.

Francis Galton, who was Charles Darwin’s cousin, is considered the father of eugenics and was one of the first to formally study intelligence. His 1869 work Hereditary Genius argued that superior mental capabilities were passed down via natural selection – confined to Europe’s most eminent men, a “lineage of genius”. Barring a few exceptions, women, ethnic minorities and lower socioeconomic communities were labelled as inferior in intelligence.

Galton’s controversial theories on race, socioeconomics and intelligence have been highly influential and shaped the ideologies of numerous researchers and theorists around the world.

In the UK, proponents of a Galtonian view on intelligence included educational psychologist Cyril Burt, who helped formulate the 11-plus examination, and psychologist Charles Spearman who is best known for his creation of the concept “g” – the innate general factor of human mental ability. Spearman’s background as an engineer in the British army gave him a statistical sophistication that proved instrumental in shifting the direction of the field of intelligence study.

Spearman: statistician who delved into human intelligence. Eugène Pirou via Wikimedia Commons

Spearman hypothesised that intelligence is comprised of “g” – or “general intelligence”, and two other specific factors: verbal ability and fluency. Spearman’s extensive work on the use of “g” within the field of statistics meant that some used the “hard” sciences and maths as instruments to argue that there were biological differences between races and social classes. “G” as a representation of the biological basis of intelligence is still being used today in research within the current field of behavioural genetics.

Political currency

̽��ֱ��concept of inheritance, and specifically the inheritance of intelligence, has carried over into political and educational spheres. A more recent advocate of Galtonian-inspired ideas is Dominic Cummings, who served as a special advisor to the former secretary of state for education, Michael Gove. Cummings wrote the following in a 237-page document titled “Some thoughts on education and political priorities”:

Raising school performance of poorer children … would not necessarily lower parent-offspring correlations (nor change heritability estimates). When people look at the gaps between rich and poor children that already exist at a young age (3-5), they almost universally assume that these differences are because of environmental reasons (“privileges of wealth”) and ignore genetics.

̽��ֱ��birth of twins studies

From the 1920s, when twin and adoption studies set out to determine the genetic and environmental origins of intelligence differences, the study of intelligence began to converse with the early stages of human behavioural genetics.

Under the presumption that twins experience similar environmental aspects, twins studies enable researchers to evaluate the variance of a given outcome – such as cognitive ability – in a large group. They can then attempt to estimate how much of this variance is due to the heritability of genes, the shared environment the twins live in, or a non-shared environment.

̽��ֱ��1980s and 1990s saw another rise in twin and adoption studies on intelligence, many of which were more systematic in nature due to advances in technology. Most supported earlier research and showed intelligence to be highly heritable and polygenic, meaning that it is influenced by many different genetic markers.

̽��ֱ��researchers Robert Plomin, JC Defries, and Nele Jacobs were at the forefront of this new wave of studies. But this research was still unable to identify the specific genetic markers within the human genome that are connected to intelligence.

Genome – a new frontier

Genome sequencing technologies have taken the search for the genetic components of inheritance another step forward. Despite the seemingly endless possibilities brought forth by the Human Genome Project in 2001, actually using DNA-based techniques to locate which genetic differences contribute to observed differences in intelligence has been markedly more difficult than anticipated.

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) began to take hold as a powerful tool for investigating the human genetic architecture. These studies assess connections between a trait and a multitude of DNA markers. Most commonly, they look for single-nucleotide polymorphisms, or SNPs. These are variations between genes at specific locations throughout a DNA sequence that might determine an individual’s likelihood to develop a particular disease or trait.

Originally intended to identify genetic risk factors associated with susceptibility to disease, GWAS have become a means through which to try and pinpoint the genetic factors responsible for cognitive ability. But researchers have shown that intelligence is a trait influenced by many different genes: they have so far been unable to locate enough SNPs to predict the IQ of an individual.

Ethical questions

There’s a long way still to go, but this field is receiving a great deal of publicity. This raises several ethical questions. We must ask ourselves if this research can ever be socially neutral given the eugenic-Galtonian history underpinning it.

This kind of research could have an impact on human genetic engineering and the choices parents make when deciding to have children. It could give parents with the money and desire to do so the option to make their offspring “smarter”. Though genetically engineering intelligence may appear to be in the realm of science fiction, if the genes associated with intelligence are identified, it could become a reality.

Some researchers have suggested that schools which have a child’s genetic information could tailor the curriculum and teaching to create a system of “personalised learning”. But this could lead schools to expect certain levels of achievement from certain groups of children – perhaps from different socioeconomic or ethnic groups – and would raise questions of whether richer families would benefit most.

Whether calling it “intelligence”, “cognitive ability”, or “IQ”, behavioural genetics research is still trying to identify the genetic markers for a trait that can predict, in essence, a person’s success in life. Given the history of this field of research, it’s vital it is conducted with an awareness of its possible ethical impact on all parts of society.

Daphne Martschenko, PhD Candidate, ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge

This article was originally published on ̽��ֱ��Conversation. Read the original article.

̽��ֱ��opinions expressed in this article are those of the individual author(s) and do not represent the views of the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge.

Daphne Martschenko (Faculty of Education) discusses the concept of intelligence and the drive to identify and quantify it.

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes