No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The value of sociogenomics in understanding genetic evolution in contemporary human populations
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 September 2023
Abstract
Burt's target article oddly misses the important intellectual contribution of sociogenomics to our understanding of genetic evolution in contemporary human populations. Although social scientists' immediate research agendas are often not evolutionary in nature, I call for a better appreciation of the role of sociogenomics in answering important evolutionary questions.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Beauchamp, J. P. (2016). Genetic evidence for natural selection in humans in the contemporary United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(28), 7774–7779. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1600398113CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Colleran, H. (2016). The cultural evolution of fertility decline. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 371(1692), 20150152. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0152CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guo, J., Wu, Y., Zhu, Z., Zheng, Z., Trzaskowski, M., Zeng, J., … Yang, J. (2018). Global genetic differentiation of complex traits shaped by natural selection in humans. Nature Communications, 9(1), 1865. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-04191-yCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hong, Z. (2020). Modelling the on-going natural selection of educational attainment in contemporary societies. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 493, 110210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2020.110210CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hugh-Jones, D., & Abdellaoui, A. (2022). Human capital mediates natural selection in contemporary humans. Behavior Genetics, 52(4-5), 1–30.Google ScholarPubMed
Jensen, C. J., & Levin, B. H. (2007). The world of 2020: Demographic shifts, cultural change, and social challenge. In Schafer, J. (Ed.), Exploring the future of crime, communities, and policing (pp. 31–70). U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation.Google Scholar
Kong, A., Frigge, M. L., Thorleifsson, G., Stefansson, H., Young, A. I., Zink, F., … Stefansson, K. (2017). Selection against variants in the genome associated with educational attainment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(5), E727–E732. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1612113114CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mills, M. C., & Tropf, F. C. (2020). Sociology, genetics, and the coming of age of sociogenomics. Annual Review of Sociology, 46, 553–581. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milot, E., Mayer, F. M., Nussey, D. H., Boisvert, M., Pelletier, F., & Reále, D. (2011). Evidence for evolution in response to natural selection in a contemporary human population. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(41), 17040–17045. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1104210108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nettle, D., & Pollet, T. V. (2008). Natural selection on male wealth in humans. The American Naturalist, 172(5), 658–666.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ní Bhrolcháin, M., & Beaujouan, É. (2012). Fertility postponement is largely due to rising educational enrolment. Population Studies, 66(3), 311–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/00324728.2012.697569CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robinson, G. E. (1999). Integrative animal behaviour and sociogenomics. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 14(5), 202–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(98)01536-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robinson, G. E., Grozinger, C. M., & Whitfield, C. W. (2005). Sociogenomics: Social life in molecular terms. Nature Reviews Genetics, 6(4), 257–270. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg1575CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soares, R. R. (2005). Mortality reductions, educational attainment, and fertility choice. American Economic Review, 65(3), 580–601. https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828054201486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stearns, S. C., Byars, S. G., Govindaraju, D. R., & Ewbank, D. (2010). Measuring selection in contemporary human populations. Nature Reviews Genetics, 11(9), 611–622. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg2831CrossRefGoogle 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