No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Misguided model of human behavior: Comment on C. H. Burt: “Challenging the utility of polygenic scores for social science…”
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 September 2023
Abstract
This commentary emphasizes two problem areas mentioned by Burt. First, that within-family designs do not eradicate stratification confounds. Second, that the linear/additive model of genetic causes of form and variation is not supported by recent progress in molecular biology. It concludes with an appeal for a (biologically and psychologically) more realistic model of such causes.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Baverstock, K. (2021). The gene: An appraisal. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 164, 46–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2021.04.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Biddle, J. W., Martinez-Corral, R., Wong, F., & Gunawardena, J. (2021). Allosteric conformational ensembles have unlimited capacity for integrating information. eLife, 10, e65498. doi: 10.7554/eLife.65498CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fletcher, J. (2021). Backdoor to a dead end: A review essay. Population and Development Review, 48, 253–258. https://doi.org/10.1111/padr.12487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, J. C. (2017). No longer invisible: Understanding the psychosocial impact of skin color stratification in the lives of African American women. Health & Social Work, 42, 71–78, https://doi.org/10.1093/hsw/hlx001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harden, K. P. (2021). The genetic lottery: Why DNA matters for social equality. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Isbel, L., Grand, R. S., & Schübeler, D. (2022). Generating specificity in genome regulation through transcription factor sensitivity to chromatin. Nature Reviews Genetics, 23(12), 728–740. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-022-00512-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kempthorne, O. (1978). Logical, epistemological and statistical aspects of nature–nurture data interpretation. Biometrics, 34(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kraft, P., Kraft, B., Hagen, T., & Espeseth, T. (2022). Subjective socioeconomic status, cognitive abilities, and personal control: Associations with health behaviours. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 784758. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.784758CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lyon, P., Keijzer, F., Arendt, D., & Levin, M. (2021). Reframing cognition: Getting down to biological basics. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B, 376, 20190750. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0750CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Madole, J. W., & Harden, K. P. (2023). Building causal knowledge in behavior genetics. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X22000681Google Scholar
Monroe, J. G., Srikant, T., Carbonell-Bejerano, P., Becker, C., Lensink, M., Exposito-Alonso, M., … Weigel, D. (2022). Mutation bias reflects natural selection in Arabidopsis thaliana. Nature, 602, 101–105. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-04269-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Noble, D. (2016). Dance to the tune of life: Biological relativity. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Richardson, K. (2020). In the light of the environment: Evolution through biogrammars not programmers. Biological Theory, 15, 212e222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, K. (2021). Genes and knowledge: Response to Baverstock. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 167, 12–17. doi: 10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2021.10.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richardson, K. (2022). Understanding intelligence. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richardson, K., & Norgate, S. H. (2015). Does IQ really predict job performance? Applied Developmental Science, 19, 153–169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shapiro, J. A. (2013). How life changes itself: The read-write (RW) genome. Physics of Life Reviews, 10, 287–323.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shapiro, J. A. (2020). All living cells are cognitive. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, 564, 134–149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wagner, A., & Wright, J. (2007). Alternative routes and mutational robustness in complex regulatory networks. BioSystems, 88, 163–172.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watanabe, K., Stringer, S., Frei, O., Mirkov, M. U., de Leeuw, C., Polderman, T. J. C., … Posthuma, D. (2019). A global overview of pleiotropy and genetic architecture in complex traits. Nature Genetics, 51, 1339–1348. doi: 10.1038/s41588-019-0481-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, C. J., Smith, C. W. J., & Jiggins, C. D. (2022). Alternative splicing as a source of phenotypic diversity. Nature Reviews Genetics, 23, 697–710. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-022-00514-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Target article
Challenging the utility of polygenic scores for social science: Environmental confounding, downward causation, and unknown biology
Related commentaries (24)
Beware of the phony horserace between genes and environments
Burt uses a fallacious motte-and-bailey argument to dispute the value of genetics for social science
Cognitive traits are more appropriate for genetic analysis than social outcomes
Complex interactions confound any unitary approach to social phenomena, not just biological ones
Don't miss the chance to reap the fruits of recent advances in behavioral genetics
Downward causation and vertical pleiotropy
Genomics might not be the solution, but epistemic validity remains a challenge in the social sciences
GWASs and polygenic scores inherit all the old problems of heritability estimates
Increasing the use of functional and multimodal genetic data in social science research
Methodological question-begging about the causes of complex social traits
Misguided model of human behavior: Comment on C. H. Burt: “Challenging the utility of polygenic scores for social science…”
Often wrong, sometimes useful: Including polygenic scores in social science research
Polygenic risk scores cannot make their mark on psychiatry without considering epigenetics
Polygenic scores and social science
Polygenic scores ignore development and epigenetics, dramatically reducing their value
Polygenic scores, and the genome-wide association studies they derive from, will have difficulty identifying genes that predispose one to develop a social behavioral trait
Social scientists would do well to steer clear of polygenic scores
Taking a lifespan approach to polygenic scores
The challenges of sociogenomics make it more, not less, worthy of careful and innovative investigation
The failure of gene-centrism
The social stratification of population as a mechanism of downward causation
The value of sociogenomics in understanding genetic evolution in contemporary human populations
Tractable limitations of current polygenic scores do not excuse genetically confounded social science
Vertical pleiotropy explains the heritability of social science traits
Author response
Polygenic scores for social science: Clarification, consensus, and controversy