Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-jkvpf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-19T01:41:27.149Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Behavior genetics and randomized controlled trials: A misleading analogy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 September 2023

Jonathan Michael Kaplan Open the ORCID record for Jonathan Michael Kaplan [Opens in a new window]  and
Kevin Andrew Bird Open the ORCID record for Kevin Andrew Bird [Opens in a new window]
Jonathan Michael Kaplan
Affiliation:
Philosophy Program, School of History, Philosophy, and Religion, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA Jonathan.Kaplan@oregonstate.edu
Kevin Andrew Bird
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior Program, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA kevinbird93@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Madole & Harden argue that just as the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) represent gains in causal knowledge and are useful, despite their limitations, so too are the findings of human behavior genetics. We argue that this analogy is misleading. Unlike RCTs, the results of human behavior genetics research cannot suggest efficacious interventions, nor point toward future research.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 46 , 2023 , e193
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ding, Y., Hou, K., Burch, K. S., Lapinska, S., Privé, F., Vilhjálmsson, B., … Pasaniuc, B. (2022). Large uncertainty in individual polygenic risk score estimation impacts PRS-based risk stratification. Nature Genetics, 54(1), 30–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fusar-Poli, L., Rutten, B. P., van Os, J., Aguglia, E., & Guloksuz, S. (2022). Polygenic risk scores for predicting outcomes and treatment response in psychiatry: Hope or hype? International Review of Psychiatry, 34(7-8), 663–6751.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jencks, C., Smith, M., Henry, A., Jo Bane, M., Cohen, D., Gintis, H., … Michelson, S. (1972). Inequality: A reassessment of the effect of family and schooling in America. Basic Books.Google Scholar
Kaplan, J. M., & Fullerton, S. M. (2022). Polygenic risk, population structure and ongoing difficulties with race in human genetics. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 377(1852), 20200427.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaplan, J. M., & Turkheimer, E. (2021). Galton's Quincunx: Probabilistic causation in developmental behavior genetics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 88, 60–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matthews, L. J. (2022). Half a century later and we're back where we started: How the problem of locality turned in to the problem of portability. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 91, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, T. T., Davies, N. M., & Smith, G. D. (2020). Can education be personalised using pupils’ genetic data? eLife, 9, e49962.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muslimova, D., Dias Pereira, R., von Hinke, S., Van Kippersluis, H., Rietveld, C. A., & Meddens, S. F. W. (2023). Rank concordance of polygenic indices. Nature Human Behavior, 7, 802–811. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01544-6.Google ScholarPubMed
Schultz, L. M., Merikangas, A. K., Ruparel, K., Jacquemont, S., Glahn, D. C., Gur, R. E., … Almasy, L. (2022). Stability of polygenic scores across discovery genome-wide association studies. Human Genetics and Genomics Advances, 3(2), 100091.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turkheimer, E. (2016). Weak genetic explanation 20 years later: Reply to Plomin et al. (2016). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(1), 24–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed