Nature vs. Nurture in Precision Education: Insights of Parents and the Public

Schoolhouse risk: Can we mitigate the polygenic Pygmalion effect?

BACKGROUND

Although limited in predictive accuracy, polygenic scores (PGS) for educational outcomes are currently available to the public via direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies. Further, there is a growing movement to apply PGS in educational settings via 'precision education.' Prior scholarship highlights the potentially negative impacts of such applications, as disappointing results may give rise a "polygenic Pygmalion effect." In this paper two studies were conducted to identify factors that may mitigate or exacerbate negative impacts of PGS.

METHODS

Two studies were conducted. In each, 1188 students were randomized to one of four conditions: Low-percentile polygenic score for educational attainment (EA-PGS), Low EA-PGS + Mitigating information, Low EA-PGS + Exacerbating information, or Control. Regression analyses were used to examine differences between conditions.

RESULTS

In Study 1, participants randomized to Control reported significantly higher on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES), Competence Scale (CS), Academic Efficacy Scale (AES) and Educational Potential Scale (EPS). CS was significantly higher in the Low EA-PGS + Mitigating information condition. CS and AES were significantly lower in the Low EA-PGS + Exacerbating information condition compared to the Low EA-PGS + Mitigating information condition. In Study 2, participants randomized to Control reported significantly higher CS and AES. Pairwise comparisons did not show significant differences in CS and AES. Follow-up pairwise comparisons using Tukey P-value correction did not find significant associations between non-control conditions.

CONCLUSION

These studies replicated the polygenic Pygmalion effect yet were insufficiently powered to detect significant effects of mitigating contextual information. Regardless of contextual information, disappointing EA-PGS results were significantly associated with lower assessments of self-esteem, competence, academic efficacy, and educational potential.

"Ethical Responsibility Very Often Gets Drowned Out": A Qualitative Interview Study of Genome Scientists' and ELSI Scholars' Perspectives on the Role and Relevance of ELSI Expertise

BACKGROUND

Genome scientists and Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications of genetics (ELSI) scholars commonly inhabit distinct research cultures - utilizing different research methods, asking different research questions, and valuing different types of knowledge. Collaborations between these two communities are frequently called for to enhance the ethical conduct of genomics research. Yet, little has been done to qualitatively compare genome scientists' and ELSI scholars' perspectives on collaborations with each other and the factors that may affect these collaborations.

METHODS

20 semi-structured interviews with US-based genome scientists and ELSI scholars were conducted between June-September 2021. Interviews were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Genome scientists and ELSI scholars provided different understandings of the value and goals of their collaborations with each other. Genome scientists largely perceived ELSI expertise to be relevant for human subjects research; they described ELSI scholars as communicators who help the public and/or study participants better understand genomics research. In comparison, ELSI scholars viewed themselves as developing and implementing policies; they expressed frustration at how scientists can misunderstand their research methods or negatively perceive them. A combination of factors - both structural (e.g., criteria for promotion) and cultural (e.g., perceptions of what colleagues value and respect) - seemed to shape these diverging perspectives.

CONCLUSION

Academic institutions, funders, and researchers commonly call for collaborations between genome scientists and ELSI scholars, but under-consider how their different conceptual frameworks, research methods, goals, norms, and values, conjoin to affect such partnerships. Acknowledging, exploring, and addressing the complex interplay between these factors could help to more effectively facilitate collaborations between genome scientists and ELSI scholars.