Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-lfk5g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-18T09:10:08.800Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Beware of the phony horserace between genes and environments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 September 2023

Sam Trejo Open the ORCID record for Sam Trejo [Opens in a new window]  and
Daphne Oluwaseun Martschenko Open the ORCID record for Daphne Oluwaseun Martschenko [Opens in a new window]
Sam Trejo
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology and Office of Population Research, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA samtrejo@princeton.edu; www.samtrejo.com
Daphne Oluwaseun Martschenko
Affiliation:
Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA daphnem@stanford.edu; www.daphnemartschenko.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although Burt provides a valuable critique of the scientific value of integrating genetic data into social science research, she reinforces rather than disrupts the age-old horserace between genetic effects and environmental effects. We must move past this false dichotomy to create a new ontology that recognizes the ways in which genetic and environmental processes are inextricably intertwined.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 46 , 2023 , e228
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

Domingue, B., Trejo, S., Armstrong-Carter, E., & Tucker-Drob, E. (2020). Interactions between polygenic scores and environments: Methodological and conceptual challenges. Sociological Science, 7, 365–386. https://doi.org/10.15195/v7.a19CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heine, S. J. (2017). DNA is not destiny: The remarkable, completely misunderstood relationship between you and your genes. Norton.Google Scholar
Holland, P. W. (1986). Statistics and causal inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81(396), 945–960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howe, L. J., Nivard, M. G., Morris, T. T., Hansen, A. F., Rasheed, H., Cho, Y., … van der Zee, M. D. (2021). Within-sibship GWAS improve estimates of direct genetic effects. BioRxiv.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laidley, T., Domingue, B., Sinsub, P., Harris, K. M., & Conley, D. (2019). New evidence of skin color bias and health outcomes using sibling difference models: A research note. Demography, 56(2), 753–762. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-018-0756-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martschenko, D., Trejo, S., & Domingue, B. W. (2019). Genetics and education: Recent developments in the context of an ugly history and an uncertain future. AERA Open, 5(1), 2332858418810516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, M., Turley, P., & Benjamin, D. (2020). Genetic scoring presents opportunity, peril. The Wall Street Journal. https://medium.com/@michellenmeyer/response-to-charles-murray-on-polygenic-scores-e768cf145ccGoogle Scholar
Murray, C. (2020). Genetics will revolutionize social science. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/genetics-will-revolutionize-social-science-11580169106Google Scholar