Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8kt4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-14T08:41:32.221Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mechanistic understanding of individual outcomes: Challenges and alternatives to genetic designs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 September 2023

Olesya Bondarenko Open the ORCID record for Olesya Bondarenko [Opens in a new window]
Olesya Bondarenko*
Affiliation:
Department of History and Philosophy of Science, St John's College, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK ob317@cam.ac.uk https://www.hps.cam.ac.uk/directory/bondarenko
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I argue that advancing “second-generation” or mechanistic causal knowledge of individual outcomes requires a comprehensive research programme that uses a variety of different methods in addition to the ones described in the paper under discussion. I also highlight that environment-focused approaches can be as instrumental in identifying potential phenotypic causes as gene-focused approaches.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 46 , 2023 , e183
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.)

References

Akimova, E. T., Breen, R., Brazel, D. M., & Mills, M. C. (2021). Gene–environment dependencies lead to collider bias in models with polygenic scores. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Belsky, D. W., & Harden, K. P. (2019). Phenotypic annotation: Using polygenic scores to translate discoveries from genome-wide association studies from the top down. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(1), 82–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briley, D. A., Livengood, J., & Derringer, J. (2018). Behaviour genetic frameworks of causal reasoning for personality psychology. European Journal of Personality, 32(3), 202–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cesarini, D., & Visscher, P. M. (2017). Genetics and educational attainment. Npj Science of Learning, 2(1), 4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eriksson, K., Lindvall, J., Helenius, O., & Ryve, A. (2021). Socioeconomic status as a multidimensional predictor of student achievement in 77 societies. Frontiers in Education, 6(6), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freese, J. (2018). The arrival of social science genomics. Contemporary Sociology, 47(5), 524–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hackman, D. A., Gallop, R., Evans, G. W., & Farah, M. J. (2015). Socioeconomic status and executive function: Developmental trajectories and mediation. Developmental Science, 18(5), 686–702.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harden, K. P. (2021). The genetic lottery: Why DNA matters for social equality. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kendler, K. S., Turkheimer, E., Ohlsson, H., Sundquist, J., & Sundquist, K. (2015). Family environment and the malleability of cognitive ability: A Swedish national home-reared and adopted-away cosibling control study. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(15), 4612–4617.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, H., & Guo, G. (2016). Opportunities and challenges of big data for the social sciences: The case of genomic data. Social Science Research, 59, 13–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pingault, J.-B., O'Reilly, P. F., Schoeler, T., Ploubidis, G. B., Rijsdijk, F., & Dudbridge, F. (2018). Using genetic data to strengthen causal inference in observational research. Nature Reviews Genetics, 19(9), 566–580.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tabery, J. (2014). Beyond versus: The struggle to understand the interaction of nature and nurture. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar