Search results

The author considers whether differences in genetic endowment may account for racial and ethnic differences in school readiness. While acknowledging an important role for genes in explaining differences within races, he nevertheless argues that environment explains most of the gap between blacks and whites, leaving little role for genetics.

Based on a wide range of direct and indirect evidence, particularly work by Klaus Eyferth and James Flynn, the author concludes that the black-white gap is not substantially genetic in orgin. In studies in 1959 and 1961, Eyferth first pointed to the near-disappearance of the black-white gap among children of black and white servicemen raised by German mothers after World War II. In the author's view, Flynn's exhaustive 1980 analysis of Eyferth's work provides close to definitive evidence that the black disadvantage is not genetic to any important degree.

But even studies showing an important role for genes in explaining within-group differences, he says, do not rule out the possibility of improving the school performance of disadvantaged children through interventions aimed at improving their school readiness. Such interventions, he argues, should stand or fall on their own costs and benefits. And behavioral genetics offers some lessons in designing and evaluating interventions. Because normal differences in preschool resources or parenting practices in working- and middle-class families have only limited effects on school readiness, interventions can have large effects only if they significantly change the allocation of resources or the nature of parenting practices.

The effects of most interventions on cognitive ability resemble the effect of exercise on physical conditioning: they are profound but short-lived. But if interventions make even small permanent changes in behavior that support improved cognitive ability, they can set off multiplier processes, with improved ability leading to more stimulating environments and still further improvements in ability. The best interventions, argues the author, would saturate a social group and reinforce individual multiplier effects by social multipliers and feedback effects. The aim of preschool programs, for example, should be to get students to continue to seek out the cognitive stimulation the program provides even after it ends.

AbstractThe purpose ofBehavioral Genetics5th edition (BG) is to cover the knowns and unknowns of behavior genetics, conveying the excitement of the field, its prospects, and something of the methods. Like the importantAmerican Psychologist(AP) paper 'Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns' (Neisser et al., 1996), BG is designed to convey a consensus, in this case across fields as diverse as autism and xenophobia. Establishing and communicating this consensus is especially important for behavior genetics when many students are relatively unaware of the existence of biological differences. To meet this bold purpose the book needs to be accessible to those new to genetics while remaining accurate, and this goal is met admirably. The text is suffused with a calm and even handed approach that allows it to address its pedagogical task far better than most texts. It has been honed across the decades, including a complete rewrite (3rd edition), and, now, two rounds of fine-tuning. This polish pays off: the book reads very well, is well indexed, and integrated.

Contrary to the environmental determinism presumed by most social science commentators, & to the genetic determinism propounded by advocates of hardcore "sociobiology," presented here is the transactional, epigenetic approach commonly accepted in the life sciences. For the study of humans, this approach requires a focus on the reciprocal effects between genotype & both physical & sociocultural environments throughout development. Discussed are: the biology of human sexuality, sex roles, & political behavior. Political models & practices are proposed that will take better advantage of the characteristic differences between M & F brains in political thinking & behavior, & that will require a major reversal of the contemporary ratio in sex representation in political roles. Modified HA.

Summary: There is good evidence from recent studies that depression is familial, and that a substantial proportion of the variation in liability is explained by genes. Suicidal behavior, including completed suicide, also seems to cluster in families. First-degree relatives of individuals who have committed suicide (included dizygotic twins) have more than twice the risk of the general population. For identical co-twins of suicides, the relative risk increases to about 11. Applying a simple structural equation model to the published data suggests a heritability for completed suicide of about 43% (95% confidence intervals 25-60). It is not known at present whether the genes predisposing to suicide are identical with those predisposing to affective disorder, but since only about half of those committing suicide have a diagnosis of depression, it seems probable that the overlap is incomplete. The mode of inheritance of suicidal behavior is almost certain to be complex, involving many genes. There have already been some initial studies of allelic association with polymorphisms in candidate genes such as those involved in serotonergic transmission. Further progress is likely to come from candidate gene and linkage disequilibrium studies that are capable of detecting multiple genes of small effect.

Background: Research on attitudes toward genetics and medicine registers skepticism among minority communities, but the reasons for this skepticism are not well known. In the past, studies linked mistrust of the medical system to historical ethics violations involving minority groups and to suspicions about ideological premise and political intent. Methods: To assess public knowledge, attitudes, and behavior regarding human-genetics research, we surveyed 858 Americans onsite in four community settings or online in a geographically nonspecific manner. Results: Compared to participants as a whole, African Americans were significantly more likely to believe that clinical trials might be dangerous and that the federal government knowingly conducted unethical research, including studies in which risky vaccines were administered to prison populations. However, African Americans were also significantly more likely to believe that the federal government worked to prevent environmental exposure to toxicants harmful to people with genetic vulnerabilities. Conclusions: Our data suggest that most Americans trust government to act ethically in sponsoring and conducting research, including genetics research, but that African Americans are particularly likely to see government as powerfully protective in some settings yet selectively disingenuous in others.

Motivated by earlier work studying the genetic basis of political attitudes (Martin, Eaves, Heath, Jardine, Feingold & Eysenck 1986, Alford, Funk & Hibbing 2005), researchers found that political behaviors such as voter turnout (Fowler, Baker & Dawes 2008), broader participation (Fowler, Baker & Dawes 2008), and partisan attachment (Settle, Dawes & Fowler 2009, Hatemi, Hibbing, Alford, Martin & Eaves 2009) also have a significant heritable component. These findings prompted a great deal of discussion and debate and helped spawn the nascent field of "genopolitics". However, in order to push this area of research forward scholars must identify causal mechanisms linking genes to political behaviors. The goal of this dissertation, which is made up of three distinct chapters, is to explore potential causal pathways my testing potential mediators such as personality traits and cognitive ability as well as identifying new genetic variants that may be associated with political behaviors. The first chapter presents a twin study testing whether the psychological traits cognitive ability, personal control, and extraversion mediate the relationship between genes and political predisposition and acts of participation. The second chapter is a candidate gene association study that tests the hypothesis that extraversion mediates a relationship between a variant of the COMT gene and partisan attachment. The third chapter presents the results from a genome-wide association study of validated voter turnout in the 2010 election. To complete this work I have utilized four novel genetically informative data sets. Two of these data sets were constructed here at UCSD, one at the University of Minnesota, and another with a research team from Sweden. All three studies shed new light on the relationship between genes and these political behaviors. However, the mediation results from Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 suggest only a modest amount of the relationship between genes and political behaviors are mediated by personality traits and cognitive ability. In addition, the investigation of over 500,000 genetic variants presented in Chapter 3 did not turn up many new significant associations. However, all three chapters provide a template for how future work in this area should be done as well as highlight the pitfalls in this burgeoning area of research

Three main reasons why a genetic approach is unlikely to be a solution to common diseases in the foreseeable future are discussed. The first is the great importance of environmental circumstances in determining health, the second reason is the great complexity of gene/gene, gene/environment interactions, and the third reason is human behavior with regard to compliance with medical recommendations. Since particular interests are likely to push for a genetic approach to disease, there will be a need to protect the public interest so that premature and inappropriate use of genetics is not made, and so that a balanced opportunity to better the health of all is not missed.

By combining one-half of a regular genetics course with a special half describing the use of genetics in legal decisions, a new course, "Genetics and the Law," has been offered at Union College for the past few years. The course stresses the interface between strictly genetic discoveries and their use in all fields of law as a basis for judicial actions. The course, open to all except biology majors and premedical or predental students, serves as part of Union College's "Liberal Learning Program," and as one of the two courses, among many, serving as science credits needed for graduation. The special conditions under which this course is possible, as well as the methods of teaching and the problems encountered both in attracting students and in designing a comparable course are presented.

Chapter 1. Laterality of Fish – Anti-symmetry in Fish Populations Maintained by the Interspecific Interaction -- Chapter 2. Universality of laterality among fish and invertebrates in aquatic communities -- Chapter 3.Predominance of Cross Predation or Parallel Predation in Fish -- Chapter 4.Behavioral laterality in the scale-eating cichlid fish: detailed movement, development, and neuronal mechanisms -- Chapter 5.Models of Lateral Asymmetry Dynamics:Realistic Oscillations by Time Delay andFrequency Dependence -- Chapter 6.Mathematical models of predators and prey with laterality -- Chapter 7.Statistical Analysis of Lateral Asymmetry:Detect Antisymmetry and Oscillation fromUnequal-Interval Binomial Data -- Chapter 8.Models of Genetic System of LateralAsymmetry: Population Dynamics DriveEvolution of Genetic System -- Chapter 9.Mechanisms Underlying Variations in the Dentition Asymmetry of Asian Snail-Eating Snakes -- Chapter 10.Single-gene speciation, balanced polymorphism, and antagonistic coevolution in left-right asymmetry of land snails.

Advances in genetics, such as the Human Genome Project's successful mapping of the human genome and the discovery of ever more sites of disease-related mutations, invite re-examination of basic concepts underlying our fundamental social practices and institutions. Having children, assigning responsibility, identifying causes, using social and scientific resources to improve human well-being, among other concepts, will never be the same. Our concepts of moral and legal responsibility, cause and effect, disease prevention, health, disability, enhancement, personal identity, and reproductive autonomy and responsibility are all subtly changing in response to developments in genetics. Biology, law, medicine, and other disciplines are also evolving in response to mutating concepts in genetics itself-for example, dominance, causation, behavior, gene expression, and gene. The selections in this volume employ philosophical and historical perspectives to shed light on classic social, ethical, and philosophical issues raised with renewed urgency against the backdrop of the mapping of the human genome