Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-v2srd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-17T17:17:58.610Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

GWASs and polygenic scores inherit all the old problems of heritability estimates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 September 2023

Sahotra Sarkar Open the ORCID record for Sahotra Sarkar [Opens in a new window]
Sahotra Sarkar*
Affiliation:
Departments of Philosophy and Integrative Biology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA sarkar@austin.utexas.edu sahotra-sarkar.org
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Polygenic score (PGS) computations assume an additive model of gene action because associations between phenotypes and alleles at different loci are compounded, ignoring interactions between alleles or loci let alone between genotype and environment. Consequently, PGSs are subject to the same objections that invalidated traditional heritability analyses in the 1970s. Thus, PGSs should not be used in the social sciences.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 46 , 2023 , e227
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

Feldman, M. W., & Lewontin, R. C. (1975). The heritability hang-up. Science (New York, N.Y.), 190, 1163–1168.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feldman, M. W., & Ramachandran, S. (2018). Missing compared to what? Revisiting heritability, genes and culture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 373, 20170064.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harden, K. P. (2021). “Reports of my death were greatly exaggerated”: Behavior genetics in the postgenomic era. Annual Review of Psychology, 72, 37–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jacquard, A. (1983). Heritability: One word, three concepts. Biometrics, 39, 465–477.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jensen, A. R. (1969). How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement? Harvard Educational Review, 39, 1–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempthorne, O. (1978). Logical, epistemological and statistical aspects of nature–nurture data interpretation. Biometrics, 34, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Layzer, D. (1974). Heritability analyses of IQ scores: Science or numerology? Science (New York, N.Y.), 183, 1259–1266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewontin, R. C. (1974). Analysis of variance and the analysis of causes. American Journal of Human Genetics, 26, 400–411.Google ScholarPubMed
Plomin, R., & von Stumm, S. (2018). The new genetics of intelligence. Nature Reviews Genetics, 19, 148–159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sarkar, S. (1998). Genetics and reductionism. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarkar, S. (2021). Cut-and-paste genetics: A CRISPR revolution. Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Woodward, J. (2005). Making things happen: A theory of causal explanation. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zuk, O., Hechter, E., Sunyaev, S. R., & Lander, E. S. (2012). The mystery of missing heritability: Genetic interactions create phantom heritability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, 1193–1198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed