Philosophy of Genetics

Employers not compliant with new GINA law

According to the New York Times:

The most important new antidiscrimination law in two decades — the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act — will take effect in the nation’s workplaces [on Nov 21, 2009], prohibiting employers from requesting genetic testing or considering someone’s genetic background in hiring, firing or promotions.

Furthermore:

“There’s an absolute ban on the use of genetic information to make any kind of decision about employment,” said Christopher Kuczynski, assistant legal counsel with the commission.

It's easy to see how the new law "prohibits employers and health insurers from asking employees to give their family medical histories", for example "not promoting a 49-year-old to chief executive because it knew his father and grandfather died of heart attacks at age 50".

But what about more subtle forms of discrimination, where personality traits are used as genetic surrogates?  One of the most celebrated CEOs of the last 25 years, Jack Welch, openly sought and hired leaders who "exude energy”, are “able to inspire confidence”, and are “optimistic” and “comfortable in their own skin”.  He admitted that IQ, energy level, and charisma are probably innate.

Welch's approach is widely copied in corporations today.  Indeed, Performance vs Potential assessments make use of genetically-linked proxy traits to differentiate and promote high-potential employees.  Doesn't GINA make these tests illegal as well?

Motivation, Dopamine, and Schopenhauer

A recent article in the New York Times describes how a neurotransmitter in the brain, dopamine, "is less about pleasure and reward than about drive and motivation".

Furthermore:

People differ from one another at every juncture of the dopamine matrix, in the tonal background pace at which their dopamine neurons rhythmically fire, the avidity with which the cells spike in response to need or news.

In other words, no two people are alike, or motivated by the same things.  Yet despite the accumulating evidence of genetic differences among us (reported by Times science writers), this non-egalitarian, anti-Randian perspective has been difficult for most Times contributors to swallow and adopt into their own world-view.

Regarding free will, I think the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer had it about right.

We can do as we will, but we cannot will as we will.

In other words, motivation is the key factor that innately differentiates us, but you can't choose your motivations.  If you're a born leader, then you'll wake up every morning with the "fire in the belly" to try to make it happen.  But if you're a born follower, you'll wake up every morning thinking of ways to please the boss.  Yet either way, these innate choices will feel like free will.  "Being a [leader/follower] is what I want to do, of my own free choice, based on who I am."  Unfortunately, people forget that "who I am" is the genetic part. Your genes determine what motivates you.  Leadership is innate.

Interestingly, dopamine itself is merely "a compact molecule, built of 22 atoms."  It's a small molecule, and doesn't hold any inherent motivation within it.  It simply unlocks the motivation circuitry we're born with.

Nicholas Wade's Before the Dawn

Here are some excerpts from “Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of our Ancestors” by New York Times reporter Nicholas Wade:

Out of Africa
It must have a required a … genetic revolution … to make possible the emergence of behaviorally modern humans [from Africa] (p. 31)  Religion, language and reciprocity ... all seem to have emerged [there] some 50,000 years ago. (p. 168) 

Between 60,000 and 40,000 years ago much of Africa was depopulated … The reason may have been a long period of dry climate … The ancestral population itself … shrank to as few as 5,000 people. (p. 50-51) Those departing, a group of perhaps just 150 people, planned to leave Africa altogether. (p. 12) [They] crossed over the Red Sea … traveled along the coasts of southeast Asia, arriving in Australia some 46,000 years ago. (p. 8)

Modern language probably evolved only 50,000 years ago [in Africa] … all languages are probably offshoots of a single mother tongue. (p. 226) The propensity for religious belief [also dating from that time] may be innate … wired into the human mind. (p. 164)

50,000 years ago – the evolution of behaviorally modern humans
After the dispersal of the ancient population from Africa 50,000 years ago, human evolution continued independently in each continent. (p. 9) For much of the period during which the exodus from Africa unfolded, from 50,000 to 30,000 years ago, people everywhere may have looked pretty much the same … It seems likely that the first modern humans who reached Europe 45,000 years ago would also have retained black skin and other African features. (p. 95)

It has long been assumed by historians, archeologists and social scientists that human evolution was completed in the distant past … It now appears the opposite is the case. The human genome has been in full flux all the time. (p. 267)  The genome evolves so fast that whenever any community starts to breed in isolation … within a few centuries its genetics assume a distinct signature. (p. 10)

[For example,] a new version of the microcephalin gene appeared around 37,000 years ago … and is now carried by most people in Europe and East Asia. [Another] gene, a new version of ASPM, emerged 6,000 years ago and is now carried by 44% of Caucasians. Both genes are thought to be involved in determining the number of neurons formed in the cerebral cortex [conferring some cognitive advantage]. (p. 271)

The human genome bears many marks of recent evolution, prompted by adaptation to events such as cultural changes or new diseases. (p. 9)  From a historical point of view, the most interesting class of evolutionary [genetic] changes are those that occurred in response to human culture. (p. 270)

The last 15,000 years – the evolution of less violent humans
Human societies have progressed through several major transitions in the last 15,000 years … accompanied by evolutionary [genetic] as well as cultural changes. (p. 178)  Each … major cultural transition … could have become genetically embedded as the individuals who best adapted to each new social stage left more children. (p. 179)

There is a 45,000-year delay between the time of the ancestral human population [who departed Africa 50,000 years ago] and the first great urban civilizations … A suite of genetic changes [may have led to less aggressive behavior] that made people readier to live together in larger groups, to coexist without constant fighting and to accept the imposition of chieftains and hierarchy. (p. 129) 

Warfare was a routine preoccupation of primitive societies. Some 65% were at war constantly … A typical tribal society lost about 0.5% of its population in combat each year. (p. 151) If warfare was the normal state of affairs, it would have shaped almost every aspect of early human societies. (p. 157)  A willingness to kill members of one’s own species is apparently correlated with high intelligence. (p. 148) When they grow beyond a certain size, of 150 or so people, disputes [in tribal societies] became more frequent, and with no chiefs or system of adjudication, a group would break up into smaller ones along lines of kinship. (p. 72) 

It required … a diminution of [innate] human aggression and probably the evolution of new cognitive faculties, for the first settlements to emerge, beginning 15,000 years ago, and it was in the context of settled societies that warfare, trade and religion attained new degrees of complexity and refinement. (p. 265)  With [innately] tamer people, the path was now set for larger and more complex societies … that would transcend the limited horizons of the hunter-gatherer band. (p. 177)

In the Near East, around 15,000 years ago, people at last accomplished a decisive social transition, the founding of the first settled communities. (p. 9) The first evidence of a successful and long term settled community comes from people called the Natufians, who lived in the Near East from about 15,000 to 11,500 years ago. (p. 126)  The first cities started springing up in southern Mesopotamia [Iraq] some 6,000 years ago … As societies became more intricate, their operations demanded … more specialized cognitive abilities.  The invention of writing around 3400 BC opened the way to the beginning of recorded history. (p. 234) 

Though they were probably egalitarian at first, they soon developed a hierarchical form, with elites, leaders and specialization of roles. (p. 178)  Without specialized roles and some kind of hierarchy, a human society cannot grow beyond a certain level of size or complexity. (p. 69) 

Genetics and race
Today’s races did not appear until about 12,000 to 10,000 years ago [after the glaciers began their final retreat 15,000 years ago.]. (p. 200)  People can be assigned to racial groups based on sampling just a few hundred sites in their genome. (p. 194)

Genghis Khan had nearly 500 wives and concubines … An astonishing 8% of males throughout the former lands of the Mongol empire carry the Y chromosome of Genghis Khan [which] raises the question whether grandiose procreation wasn’t just a perk of Genghis Khan’s power but a motivation for it. (p. 236-7)

Richard E. Nisbett, a social psychologist at the University of Michigan, believes there are “dramatic differences in the nature of Asian and European though processes” … Did rice farming encourage the conformity for which eastern societies are known and small-scale farming the rugged individualism of the west? (p 274)

The future of human evolution
For social species the most important feature of the environment is their own society. So to the extent that people have shaped their own society, they have determined the conditions of their own evolution. (p. 267)

The inhabitants of the far future are always portrayed as looking and behaving exactly like people today. [But] all that is certain about future evolution is that people will not remain the same as they are today. (p. 275)  Future evolution will differ from that of the past … new genes inserted into the human genome on a widescale basis to replace existing genes [may supplant] the quaint and hazardous method of conceiving at random. (p. 277)  When the first generation of [genetically modified] humans … turn out to be entirely normal and robustly healthy, various enhancements of desirable traits [like intelligence] are allowed … With germline modification … human intervention can reach a desired outcome much more quickly. (p. 278)

The genes that influence human social behavior are inscribed somewhere in the genome but have not yet been recognized. (p. 141) “The human mind evolved to believe in the gods. It did not evolve to believe in biology,” writes Edward O. Wilson.  (p. 266)

Sandel's Genetics and Morality

Harvard University professor Michael Sandel has recently tried to make the case for limiting individual reproductive choice. His none-too-subtle agenda is to maintain the advantages of the genetic elites, such as himself, at the expense of the rest of society.

Sandel says he's against allowing parents to choose their children's genes. He assumes (correctly) that many social advantages (energy level, self-confidence, intelligence) are innate, and unevenly distributed.  Secretly, he's happy that he can pass along his own traits (ability to focus for long periods, mild charisma) to his children.  (I say "his children" to refer to the children of meritocrats generally.)  But he dreads that the great unwashed masses will soon be able to alter their own genes to be more like his, since then his children would become less rare and special in their innate traits.

Sandel says "there remains something troubling with the ambition to control the genetic characteristics of the next generation".  That's all very well for someone who's already born with the "gifted character of human powers" (i.e. the genes for success).  But what if you're born with other genes?  You'll never achieve as much social influence or status as Sandel and his kids.

Sandel worries that the "meritocracy, less chastened by chance, would become harder, less forgiving".  Yeah, and meritocrats would also become more commonplace, leading to less social disparity in income and status.  Today, corporations pay millions in salary and bonues to a rare cadre of super-smart, super-motivated genetic elites, who can in turn afford better lifestyles, better healthcare, and greater social influence (through political donations, ability to launch a national journal, etc).

"Changing our nature to fit the world," argues Sandel, "is actually the deepest form of disempowerment."  Really?  For you, perhaps.

Genetic testing in China

Last year I wrote a novel called "Napoleon in Shanghai" predicting that China would be the first country to begin a large-scale genetic testing program.

According to CNN, this is already coming true:

[Chinese] scientists claim a simple saliva [DNA test can predict] a child's IQ, emotional control, focus, memory, athletic ability and more ... The Chinese government is also interested in giving talented children an early start on their careers. Children as young as two are regularly hand-picked by the government to represent China on the international stage.

It's easy to see where this is headed:

China's one-child policy often produces anxious and ambitious parents with high expectations for their only child.

If you can only have one child, you'll want to ensure he or she is born with the "very best genes", for traits like charisma, ambition, self-confidence, intelligence, and self-motivation. (Ironic, since one of the central tenets of Communism is that man has no innate character!)  I predict there will be large-scale prenatal genetic screening programs in China in the next few years. The Chinese are practical people, unconstrained by Western ethics, and so will seize upon any means to advance their familial interests.

The response from the rest of the world will also be predictable.  Initially, we'll be horrified and shocked, and claim with indignation that "it will never work" and "all men are created equal".  Then, once we see the results in China, we'll change our minds and want the same for ourselves. Forget the nuclear arms race. "Nowadays, competition in the world is about who has the most talent."

Performance vs. Potential

Many companies are trying to assess and differentiate their employees using two dimensions – Performance and Potential. On a graph, performance is measured on the vertical (Y) axis, and potential is measured on the horizontal (X) axis.

Each X,Y combination is assigned a value judgement, or score, from 1 to 9.  Having high performance but poor potential gives you a score of 4.  High potential but low performance is 6, a much better score.  So potential is valued more highly than performance.

What is potential?  It's really a measure of "promotability" or leadership skills, including such innate qualities as charisma, energy-level, and self-confidence.

Performance, on the other hand, is the skill you exhibit at your current job level, including such innate qualities as intelligence, diligence and analytical skill.

Both dimensions are inborn – since how would you train charisma or genius? – so "high potential" genes are more valued than "high performance" genes.  Companies willingly pay large bonuses to charismatic leaders (6), and heap even greater rewards on the rare charismatic leader who's also smart (9), but a high performer with little potential (4) has his job outsourced to India, since those innate qualites are not valued as highly.

Choosing leaders this way is really a proxy for genetic screening. It's not like you can change yourself.  Even Donald Trump says "I don’t think anybody changes, actually. They come out a certain way, and for the most part that’s what you get."

European Invasion

According to the New York Times:

Europe has been colonized three times in the distant past, always from the south. Some 45,000 years ago the first modern humans entered Europe from the south. The glaciers returned around 20,000 years ago and the second colonization occurred about 17,000 years ago by people returning from southern refuges. The third invasion was that of farmers bringing the new agricultural technology from the Near East around 10,000 years ago.

The pattern of genetic differences among present day Europeans probably reflects the impact of these three ancient migrations, Dr. Kayser said.

What is Transhumanism?

Transhumanism, symbolized by H+, is the theory that science and technology can improve the human condition.  Mental and physical characteristics can be enhanced with robotics, genetics, and other applications of human ingenuity. 

Last year, I wrote a novel called "Napoleon in Shanghai" to illustrate some of the Transhumanist concepts.  I'd be interested in your feedback on the book, and I have a limited number of promotional copies if you'd like to review it.

Gregory Stock's DNA

Here are some excerpts from "Redesigning Humans" written in 2002 by Gregory Stock, former director of UCLA’s Program on Medicine, Technology and Society:

Future parents … will be able to select their children’s [genetic] modules from an expanding common library of enhancements. (p. 192)

People’s genetics would become a manifestation of their parents’ values and predilections. (p. 191)

[There will be] a genetic bazaar where all parents can obtain equivalent talents and potentials for their children. (p. 190)

Rare, special attributes such as photographic memory or extraordinary athletic ability may become both more extreme and more commonplace. (p. 193)

Once we can fashion our children’s biological predispositions, many cultural and personal influences will feed directly into biology. (p. 194)

Future sources of parental dissatisfaction are easy to predict. Some parents will forego germinal choice technology and end up wishing they had used it. (p. 148)

If such interventions become commonplace, the result will be revolutionary, because it will be a major step toward equalizing life’s possibilities. (p. 190)

Provision of free universal access to … [germinal choice technology (GCT)] would align better with our ideals of equal opportunity for children and might be surprisingly affordable. (p. 186)

The gifted of today ultimately may not welcome such a leveling, because it would diminish the edge their children enjoy and make society very competitive, even for the best endowed. (p. 190)

Strong voices will oppose [germinal choice technology (GCT)], but most of the warnings … will come from people with the most to lose – the well-endowed elite. (p. 190)

Critics like Leon Kass … aren’t worried that this technology will fail, but that it will succeed, and succeed gloriously ... [and] tear the fabric of our society. (p. 12)

Policymakers sometimes mistakenly think that they have a choice about whether germinal technologies will come into being. They do not. (p. 172)

Prohibitions are easy political gestures. But once GCT arrives, enforcement will be nearly impossible. (p. 166)

Government abuse is what we must fear, not germinal choice technology (GCT). (p. 199)

Direct human germline manipulations may still be a decade or two away, but methods of choosing specific genes in an embryo are in use today to prevent disease. (p. 2)

Artificial chromosomes … might allow cheap enhancement for the many. (p. 186)

The arrival of safe, reliable germline technology will signal the beginning of human self-design. (p. 3)

Saletan's Race Debate

William Saletan in Slate has bravely grappled with the racial achievement gap.  Although everyone is morally equal despite their race, dramatic differences in NAEP test scores, SAT, GRE and other tests persist between the races.  According to Saletan:

Research is constantly finding new gene-trait correlations and group differences. If your faith in equality depends on an ethnically or racially even distribution of all ability-influencing genes, you're in trouble ... People of your race may be on average faster, smarter, or more volatile than people of my race.

If this is true, it will be hard to argue that differences in achievement outcomes between the races are due to discrimination, since they're actually caused by genetic group differences.

Yet race is a poor proxy for genetic differences.  It's too blunt an instrument. In the age of Obama, when a half-white man can proudly call himself black, Saletan asks whether race is still a meaningful concept:

Why categorize and measure students by race? Aren't there better ways to organize the data? … Does that category really help? And what message does it send to kids when headlines assert a persistent "racial gap"?

Then he answers his own question: “We're prone to tribalism”.  We like to think of ourselves as part of a group.  We identify with our race, because it's like our own extended family.

But self-identifying with race also has consequences.  It invites stereotypes.  According to Larry Elder,

[blacks are only 13 percent of the population, yet] account for 37.2 percent of all those arrested for violent crimes, 54.4 percent of all robbery arrestees, and are the known offenders in 51.3 percent of all murders

It's a short leap for someone reading that volatility may be genetic to erroneously conclude that all blacks are genetically more volatile, which accounts for their higher crime rate.  And that's a big problem.  Humans have an innate tendency toward prejudice.

So, like Saletan, I wish tests and surveys would stop tracking race.  I wish society would drop the whole idea of race. Being more “volatile” is not a defining black characteristic.  It’s probably caused by a set of genes that both blacks and whites share, perhaps in different frequencies on average.  We should understand volatility and intelligence in terms of underlying genes, not race.

But tribalism is also part of human nature.  Society will not easily forgo its racial distinctions.  Perhaps we’ve reached the limit of where our innate categories of understanding will bend to reason, until we alter our nature itself.  But genetic enhancement is still decades away.  So the immediate future will be about expediency – full of its distasteful Missouri Compromises – not moral truth.

Interestingly, Saletan reaches the same conclusion that I do:

the convergence of meritocracy with genetics is leading us inexorably toward eugenics.

I don't like the term eugenics, with its implication of government-sponsored tyranny.  But I do believe in personal reproductive choice, including genetic enhancement of one's children. This won't happen without a fight, however, as society's genetic elites (perhaps with good intentions) attempt to limit access to genetic testing, ban reproductive choice, and ultimately maintain their genetic advantage.  Fewer than 30% of adults has a college degree, because the genes for traits like persistence, tenacity, and ability to defer gratification are rare today.

Open Letter to Health Secretary, and its flaws

Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, was recently sent a (flawed) open letter requesting greater oversight of genetic tests:

At the core of personalized medicine is advanced [genetic] diagnostic testing that improves a physician's ability to assess whether an individual patient is or is not likely to benefit from treatments for his or her disease or condition. Advanced diagnostic testing is becoming the standard of care for many diseases.

Accurate, reliable, and timely advanced diagnostics offer enormous promise, but poor quality testing can harm patients and waste scarce resources. Therefore, it is critical that regulatory oversight of these innovations (and innovators) strike the right balance between assuring patient safety and embracing policies that encourage the incorporation of rapidly advancing scientific methods and knowledge.

Sounds reasonable. We all want "accurate, reliable, and timely advanced diagnostics" for disease.  So what's the problem?

The problem is that the letter makes several wrong assumptions about what these genetic tests are all about.  Here are my issues:

1. Notice the use of the term "patient".  We shouldn't be medicalizing genes.  We're not patients, we're people with unique gene variants. Genes are not something you have. They are something you are. They define you, like a fingerprint.  They form the human character.
2. Most genetic variations are not involved in disease.  Instead, they are responsible for human diversity.  There's no such thing as a "disease gene".  Most genes come in different variants or flavors, and a few variants or normal genes can contribute to disease.  But all genes have a normal function first.
3. Genetic tests are not expensive, and they're getting even cheaper. Instead of running one lab test at a time, why not sequence your entire genome once and have it on file. Testing your most common genetic variants runs around $399 today, and a full genome scan currently runs $100,000, although this should decrease to around $1,000 in a few years.
4. Genetic tests are not dangerous.  You simply take some saliva or blood, and that's it.  The test can't hurt you. A genetic test simply reveals an objective fact about you, specifically your unique gene variants or flavors.  We're all 1% different, genetically-speaking.

It's the claim about the gene function that the letter writers are trying to control, under the guise of regulating genetic tests.  The government is being urged to regulate all claims on gene function.  Yet we have over 20,000 genes.  Is the government going to control information on all of these?  Again, most genetic diversity is not disease-related.

Why not allow anyone to make claims on what our genes do, in a great marketplace of ideas?  We're smart enough to consider the source, and make our own decisions.  We don't need the government intervening to block the free flow of information about ourselves.

There's also the question of fairness.  Some genetic variants give you greater energy-level, intelligence, charisma, and resilience, often leading to higher pay and social status.  Since most doctors already have these innate qualities, they're simply trying to keep their talents rare (and salary high), by having the government block access to genetic information by the rest of us.

Sorry, David Brooks – Genius and Talent are Genetic

David Brooks, writing in the New York Times, tries his best to summarize the latest research on genius:

The key factor separating geniuses from the merely accomplished is not a divine spark. It’s not I.Q. ... Instead, it’s deliberate practice ...

Public discussion is smitten by genetics and what we’re “hard-wired” to do. And it’s true that genes place a leash on our capacities. But the brain is also phenomenally plastic. We construct ourselves through behavior.

In Brooks' view, you can take anyone off the street and turn them into a genius. All you have to do is "create a sense of affinity" and infuse them with a "desperate need for success" and arm them with "ambition".  Once you've instilled this passion, they will be driven to practice, practice, practice.  And with practice comes talent.

Even if you ignore contradictory research (also in the Times) that genius brains are physically different from average brains (and that "the ability to focus for long periods of time" is probably also innate), Brooks' argument is fundamentally flawed. First, how do you get someone interested or motivated in something?  It has to resonate with their innate desires and traits.  You can't just arm someone with ambition.  It has to come from within.  Genes place a leash on our capacities, because they determine what things interest us enough to practice them.

If someone gives you a pat on the back and words of encouragement, chances are you'll practice for a while just to please them. But unless you're self-motivated and innately self-confident, you'll stop practicing as soon as it gets lonely to do so.  Yet a true genius doesn't need approval.  He or she is a force of nature, and practices day and night without approbation.

What Brooks doesn't understand is that our genes (and the body and brain they develop) are designed to be triggered by environmental cues.  Since we all differ genetically, we have different interests and motivations and passions. Motivation is innate, it's not something you can instill.  It's a rare quality, which is why leaders are so highly paid for their rare gene variants.  This obviously makes the case for greater redistribution of wealth even as it undermines the basic philosophical foundations of both major political parties.

Leadership is Innate

I'm pleased to announce the publication of my new book, "Leadership is Innate".  Here's a quick description:

Top CEOs will tell you that leadership traits come as "part of the package" and "can't really be taught". Scientists have recently begun to discover how genetic differences contribute to key leadership skills.

Even Donald Trump says "I don’t think anybody changes, actually. They come out a certain way, and for the most part that’s what you get."

This stands in proud opposition to the feel-good-but-false assertions made by "experts" such as Warren Bennis (Leaders, 1986):

[M]ajor capacities and competencies of leadership can be learned, and we are all educable, at least if the basic desire to learn is there and we do not suffer from learning disorders. Furthermore, whatever natural endowments we bring to the role of leadership, they can be enhanced; nurture is far more important than nature in determining who becomes a successful leader.

The key word here is "desire".  If you don't desire leadership, if you don't want it and crave it, if it doesn't motivate you, if it doesn't resonate with your feelings, then you can't be a leader.  Desire and motivation are what's genetic!

Designer Babies

There's a media frenzy (see the Today Show and ABC News) and pent-up demand for designer babies, and fertility clinics now have the tools to design them. 

A recent survey conducted by the New York University School of Medicine found that:

A majority [of people seeking genetic counseling] said they supported prenatal genetic tests for the elimination of certain serious diseases ... 56% supported using them to counter blindness and 75% for mental retardation. More provocatively, about 10% of respondents said they would want genetic testing for athletic ability, while another 10% voted for improved height. Nearly 13% backed the approach to select for superior intelligence. (Wall Street Journal)

Now, researchers have found a way to perform pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) on fertilized eggs, before they are implanted in the mother:

William Kearns, a medical geneticist and director of the Shady Grove Center for Preimplantation Genetics in Rockville, Md., ... described how he had managed to amplify the DNA available from a single embryonic cell to identify complex diseases and also certain physical traits.

According to Dr. Steinberg, the head of Fertility Institutes, "We intend to offer [trait selection services] soon."

James Watson's DNA

Here are excerpts from "DNA: The Secret of Life" written in 2003 by James Watson, the co-discoverer of the DNA double helix:

In a society built on an egalitarian ideal, the notion that all men are not born equal is an anathema to many people. (p. 373)

The prevailing orthodoxy holds that the best way we can help our fellow citizens is by addressing problems with their nurture. [Yet] children will get left behind if we continue to insist that each one has the same potential for learning. (p. 398)

The tabula rasa remains the paradigm of choice among the politically entrenched defenders of some increasingly untenable views of human development. (p. 374)

This tendency to prefer explanations grounded in “nurture” over ones rooted in “nature” has served a useful social purpose in redressing generations of bigotry. Unfortunately, we have now cultivated too much of a good thing. (p. 398)

In a land of equal opportunity, where we are each free to advance as far as our wits will carry us, intelligence is a trait with profound socioeconomic implications. Smart parents not only pass on smart genes; they also tend to rear their children in ways that foster intellectual growth. (p. 379)

Many of the most important genes governing behavior will indeed turn out to be those involved in constructing … the human brain. (p. 393)

Violence … can [also] be viewed through the lens of genetics. Some people are more violent than others. That’s a fact. And violent behavior may be governed by a single gene interacting with environmental factors. (p. 391)

Does DNA knowledge make a genetic caste system inevitable? A world of congenital haves and have-nots? (p. 397)

My view is that, despite the risks, we should give serious consideration to germ-line therapy [where new genes are introduced at conception, and can be passed along to offspring]. I only hope that the many biologists who share my opinion will stand tall in the debates to come and not be intimidated by the inevitable criticism. (p. 401)

Any woman reading these words should realize that one of the most important things she can do as a potential or actual parent is to gather information on the genetic dangers facing her unborn children. (p. 402)

When discussing our genes, we seem ready to commit what philosophers call the “naturalistic fallacy,” assuming that the way nature intended is best. By centrally heating our homes and taking antibiotics when we have an infection, we carefully steer clear of the fallacy in our daily lives, but mentions of genetic improvement have us rushing to run the “nature knows best” flag up the mast. (p. 399)

Science may indeed uncover unpleasant truths, but the critical thing is that they are truths. Any effort, whether wicked or well-meaning, to conceal truth or impede its disclosure is destructive. (p. 372)

Knowledge, even that which may unsettle us, is surely to be preferred to ignorance, however blissful in the short term the latter may be. All too often, however, political anxiousness favors ignorance and its apparent safety. (p. 364)

On Crime

The link between crime and genetics is so well-documented these days that even an undergraduate can write a term paper on it and cite scientific references.  See Caitlin's paper, for example.

So I won't try to duplicate those efforts.  But I just want to correct the misconception that "both genes and environment play a role in the criminality of the individual".  It's not always true.

First, what is the environment?  Your parents share your genes, so being raised in a violent family situation can't really be considered "environment".  Why?  Because the way your parents nurture you depends on how you ask to be raised.  If you have a genetic condition like Conduct Disorder or Oppositional Defiance Disorder, it will put stress on your parents.  Since they share your genes (or more specifically, your gene flavors), chances are greater that they'll also have a short temper and lack of impulse control, and so may respond with uncontrolled violence.  So the shared genes a child has with his parents are responsible for both the incessant provocation, and the violent response.  Family environment is thus genetic.

Second, psychologists often say things like "Families with poor communication and weak family bonds have been shown to have a correlation with children's development of aggressive/criminal behavior".  Or "children are at a fifty percent greater risk of engaging in criminal acts, if they were neglected or abused".  But what's the real cause?  If you're born with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), that later develops into Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD), of course you're going to be a bad parent -- remote and distant and uncaring.  Since the parent shares the same genes as the child, poor parental nurturing can't really be considered "environment" at all; it's genes reacting to genes.

So why can't we intervene, and teach a child how to control his aggressive behaviors?  Why is it so certain that genes will deterministically lead to the effect?  It's the same reason that you can predict with 100% certainty that a loaded mousetrap in a room full of mice will get sprung.  The world is full of chances to respond, but it only takes one time, and you can't completely control the environment.  If you have a high genetic tendency to react aggressively, even the most peaceful environment will set you off once in a while, and you'll kill someone or impulsively steal their belongings.

Can I choose to be an Extrovert?

I'm always interested in what a successful leader like Jack Welch has to say about innate human qualities.  He's not an expert on genetics, but he's certainly an expert on human nature.

According to Welch:

• Many introverts stagnate in large organizations. They can work hard and deliver to expectations or beyond, but they rarely get their due
• Big companies are constantly looking for people to move across divisions or around the world, and extroverts, by rights or not, appear more prepared for such opportunities
• With their charisma and superior verbal skills, [extroverts are] thought to be more "out front," able to communicate powerfully and motivate their people, especially during tough times
• Extroverts also tend to forge relationships with more ease, another boon in complex hierarchies
• Extroverts tend to outshine introverts because early on, their outsize personalities earn them chances to make presentations to higher-ups, always a good way to accelerate the career-changing process of getting out of the pile.

Welch says there are exceptions where a "reserved, shy, or awkward individual who has risen through the ranks to run something big".  But that's a rare exception.

An introvert recently wrote Welch asking for advice on how to be more extroverted.  

Welch replied:

• How do you feel about the prospect of putting on a perky face and a big voice and trying to chit-chat and "ho-ho-ho" your way into your team's heart? Panicked? Depressed? A bit of both?
• Do you simply feel worried, knowing how much people generally dislike phonies?
• You have no choice ... Get out there, mix, speak more often, and connect with both your team and others, deploying all the energy and personality you can muster.
• You may find that being more outgoing is a reward in itself.

This is a variant of the "if you want to be confident, first be confident" adage, as if confidence is simply a choice, a mask you can simply wear at will.

The reason Welch rose to become CEO is his ability to wear masks, or choose his attitude at will.  (That's one of the rare genetic traits for which he's so highly paid.)  He knows how to motivate people, and push their buttons.  Some people are motivated by being yelled at.  Some are motivated by guilt.  Some are motivated by money or power.  A good leader knows that, and can choose his own mask for the situation.

What leaders seem to ignore is that others simply can't choose to be this way.  Our brains are not wired to allow us to smile at will.  My favorite example is selective mutism, whereby someone cannot choose to speak in public, no matter how hard they try.  Because leaders don't have this gene, they don't see how others differ from themselves.  They figure everyone else can chose their mask, just like they do.

The Sports Gene

We each receive a copy of the ACTN3 gene from our parents.  It's one of the 21,500 genes we all share.  Yet the ACTN3 gene comes in different variants, or flavors.  You may get the R variant from your father, and the X variant from your mother (RX), or some other combination like RR and XX..

Yet according to the New York Times, having the R variant of the ACTN3 gene enhances your so-called "fast-twitch" muscles, to make them more "capable of the forceful, quick contractions necessary in speed and power sports".  If you inherit the X variant, you won't have that same capability.

A study "looked at 429 elite white athletes, including 50 Olympians, and found that 50 percent of the 107 sprint athletes had two copies of the R variant. Even more telling, no female elite sprinter had two copies of the X variant. All male Olympians in power sports had at least one copy of the R variant."

Of course, to make it to the Olympics, you must train and practice.  But if you don't have the R variant of the ACTN3 gene, all the training in the world won't get you there. 

In reality, you need two sets of genes to become an Olympic athlete.  First, you must possess the "ACTN3 variant R" gene for "fast-twitch" muscles.  Then you also need the "brain genes" for the drive and motivation to sustain you through the long, arduous, thankless years of training.  Drive and motivation are also innate.

Men are Autistic, Women are Schizophrenic

Since the time of Descartes, scientists have struggled to carve a niche for themselves where they can work undisturbed by cultural, political, and religious wars.  For example, Descartes devised the so-called mind/brain distinction, whereby scientists agreed to limit their inquiries strictly to the physical world (e.g. the brain and body), and cede dominion of the "mind" and spiritual world to God and the all-powerful Church.

Today, two researchers, Bernard Crespi and Christopher Badcock, are attempting a similar segregation of turf.  Since it’s not politically correct to speak of a genetic basis for human behaviors (nor innate differences among people), they’ve reframed the discussion in terms of mental diseases, which are less threatening to cultural warriors.  Scientists are now free to explore the genetic basis of mental diseases, while they cede discussions of “normal” behavior to the current orthodoxy of cultural enforcers.

So what's their new theory?  According to the New York Times, Crespi and Badcock theorize that:

An evolutionary tug of war between genes from the father’s sperm and the mother’s egg can, in effect, tip brain development in one of two ways. A strong bias toward the father pushes a developing brain along the autistic spectrum, toward a fascination with objects, patterns, mechanical systems, at the expense of social development. A bias toward the mother moves the growing brain along what the researchers call the psychotic spectrum, toward hypersensitivity to mood, their own and others’. This, according to the theory, increases a child’s risk of developing schizophrenia later on, as well as mood problems like bipolar disorder and depression.

In short: autism and schizophrenia represent opposite ends of a spectrum that includes most, if not all, psychiatric and developmental brain disorders. The theory has no use for psychiatry’s many separate categories for disorders, and it would give genetic findings an entirely new dimension.

In other words, there’s a “psychotic spectrum” of genetically influenced human traits (from autism to schizophrenia), with us “normal people” somewhere in the middle.  At the outer reaches of the spectrum are mental diseases,  which scientists are free to study to determine their underlying genetic basis.  Within the broad middle of the spectrum, where genetic variation among humans presumably also leads to different personality traits, the implication will be left to cultural warriors (i.e the "Modern Inquisition") to explore.  (Why do some people have a “fascination with objects” and lack a “sensitivity to the moods of others”?  It must be the way they were raised, they'll say!)  Meanwhile, scientists will slowly work their way to the middle of the spectrum, and finally overcome the PC resistance with definitive proof of the genetic basis of human behavior, perhaps a few years down the road.

Gene Expression vs. Genetic Variation

Gene Expression measures which of your 20,500 genes are currently active in your body.   Genetic Variation describes the subtle differences between your 20,500 genes and your neighbor’s genes, which come in different flavors from your own.   (Both gene expression and genetic variation can be measured using "gene chips").

Measuring gene expression can be misleading, becomes sometimes the effect of a gene comes long after it is switched off.  Genes act as blueprints for miniature "protein factories" in our bodily cells.  That’s what gene expression is.  The resulting proteins ultimately build structures in the body, like organs and skin and muscles and brain tissue.  But once the structures are built, the genes involved can then switch off (or go into occasional “maintenance mode”).

For example, the genes responsible for the eye’s development can mostly switch off after we're born, so many of the “eye development” genes are no longer expressed in adults, although the development of the eye is clearly genetic.

If you’re genetically pre-disposed to macular degeneration (an eye condition), you probably have different flavors of the eye development genes from your neighbor (who doesn’t suffer from the condition).  That's gene variation.  Whether the eye condition is caused by variants of your “development genes” which long ceased their activity or by “maintenance genes” is an open question.  But if the former, you can treat the condition but never cure it.

So why aren’t all our genes dormant after we’ve reached adulthood?  Aside from maintenance genes (if you cut your finger, you’d better hope these are still active, to repair the skin!), why do some of our genes still actively express their proteins?

First of all, genes don’t just act as blueprints for bodily structure.  They build an elaborate signaling system in the body.  For example, during pregnancy, hormones are used to signal the need for bodily changes.  Hormones can also induce mood changes.  So the genes that produce hormones must be able to switch on when needed, to produce more “signal”. (Neurotransmitters are another type of signaling mechanism in the brain.)

Hormones and neurotransmitters would have no effect unless “receptors” were placed strategically around the body and brain, to detect their signal and trigger a response.  Hormone receptors are constructed and strategically positioned by the genes, although they are more permanent than the transient hormonal signal.  Like soldiers on a battlefield awaiting the general’s order or command, the release of hormones into the bloodstream act as a signal, to activate the battle plans of the trained and ready army.

  The brain has hormone receptors as well.  So special modules in the brain remain ready, listening and vigilant.  Once they detect the signal, they trigger a pre-established human behavior, e.g. maternal instinct.  Pre-established human behaviors are really "brain modules" built by the genes (when we were young) to enact certain specific behaviors.  Although those genes left behind brain modules that they constructed, are no longer active (i.e. no longer "expressed").

Much of your current gene expression is related to maintenance activities and fostering the body and brain’s elaborate signaling system.  But neither your development (body and brain) nor your signaling system works the same as your neighbor’s, because you have gene variants.  Your DNA differs from your neighbor’s by 1%, which doesn’t sound like a lot.  But two keys that are 1% different still open different locks.