Larry:
I appreciate your blog comments and your careful and insightful reading of my
paper for Brain and Behavioral Sciences Let me attempt to respond to a few of
your remarks regarding the APSR paper.
One
thing I would like to highlight in reference to that article is that the same
two genes that Fowler and Dawes associated with voting have been associated with
every conceivable behavior (and a large number of non-behavioral traits).
Readers should look at the following updated version of Table 2:
A
specific polymorphism of the MAOA gene has been associated with, among other
things, agreeableness, alcoholism, Alzheimer’s disease, anger/aggression,
anorexia nervosa, antisocial behavior, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder,
attitudes toward longshot risks, auditory evoked potentials, binge drinking,
bipolar disorder, bulimia, bone mineral density, borderline personality
disorder, chronic fatigue syndrome, conscientiousness, contraception use,
cooperativeness, credit card debt, depression, educational continuation,
extraversion, facial expressionrecognition, fearfulness, fibromyalgia, gambling,
gout, hypertension, insomnia, intelligence, memory, narcolepsy, neuroticism,
novelty seeking, openness, pain perception, panic disorder, Parkinson’s disease,
persistence, restless legs syndrome, reward dependence, schizophrenia, smoking,
social phobia, stress response, success by Wall street professionals, sudden
infant death syndrome, temperomandibular disorder, time perception, and Tourette
syndrome.
What
is going on is data mining on a massive scale: A number of large data sets
contain the same polymorphisms of the same five or six genes, with the result
that these genes have been associated with every imaginable trait (and for
everystudy showing an association, there is another study showing no
association).
Regarding
the unfortunate terms “genetic determinism” v. “environmental determinism”: The
issue from the standpoint of genetics concerns whether or not specific
variations in specific polymorphisms contribute to variations in complex human
behaviors in such a manner that we can say that the polymorphism is associated
with, and presumably plays a causal role in, variation in the behavior in
question.
Political
behavior and personality are not like cystic fibrosis and sickle cell anemia,
i.e. they are not monogenic disorders in which a mutation in a single gene
results in the transcription of an abnormal protein that plays a key role in
certain metabolic processes and results in the disorder in
question.
What
we now know of what falls under the rubric of “behavior” is as follows. The
most advanced studies concern fruit flies because research allows for kinds of
investigation not possible in humans: Variation in anger involves variation in
proteins encoded in thousands of genes, with extensive pleiotropy and epistasis
(i.e., non-additivity). I particularly recommend Zwarts, et al. 2011. "Complex
genetic architecture of Drosophila aggressive behavior." Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 108 (41):17070-5. Plasticity means that there
is no single route to variation in aggression on the molecular, physiological,
and environmental level.
"Genes"
v. "environment" is a false dichotomy (but saying this in no way implies that
polymorphisms can predict complex behavior). The gene after all, has to be
transcribed, and once we acknowledge that then we are going to need to know,
e.g., cellular/physiological factors influencing the transcription of the gene
(e.g., epigenetic state of the gene to be transcribed), what cellular
physiological factors influence which form of agiven protein synthesized by the
cell from the gene (e.g., alternative splicing), what processes influence the
manner in which that protein is transferred out of the cell in which it is
produced, what homeostatic mechanisms regulate the relevant protein at the
relevant level in the relevant tissue (e.g., even if a polymorphism does enable
“faster transcription” of a protein by the cell, that in no way automatically
translates to more of that protein, since homeostatic mechanisms may serve to
counteract any perceived protein or hormonal imbalances. All of these are
environmental processes, but the structure of a gene is so intertwined with all
of the biological-environmental processes involved in its transcription,
translation, and ultimate physiological effect, that the dichotomy
gene-environment is a false one.
Every
advance in molecular genetics indicates an extraordinary conservation of the
genome of species, including plants (corn as noted in the article, has more
genes than humans). The key differentiating factor between species is the
processes that regulate gene transcription. These facts are a game
changer.
We
simply cannot predict from the structure of a polymorphism what effect (if any)
it is going to have, or is likely to have, on behavior. This is what I mean by
"genetic determinism," a perhaps unfortunate usage. All of this is argued at
greater length from the perspective of genetics, neurobiology, and evolutionary
theory in “Behavior Genetics and Post Genomics,” forthcoming in Behavioral and
Brain Sciences.
I
suggest that Rebecca Hannagan read this piece carefully and I would be happy to
discuss it with her
No comments:
Post a Comment