Estimation of indirect genetic effects and heritability under assortative mating

Examining the role of common variants in rare neurodevelopmental conditions

Although rare neurodevelopmental conditions have a large Mendelian component1, common genetic variants also contribute to risk2,3. However, little is known about how this polygenic risk is distributed among patients with these conditions and their parents nor its interplay with rare variants. It is also unclear whether polygenic background affects risk directly through alleles transmitted from parents to children, or whether indirect genetic effects mediated through the family environment4 also play a role. Here we addressed these questions using genetic data from 11,573 patients with rare neurodevelopmental conditions, 9,128 of their parents and 26,869 controls. Common variants explained around 10% of variance in risk. Patients with a monogenic diagnosis had significantly less polygenic risk than those without, supporting a liability threshold model5. A polygenic score for neurodevelopmental conditions showed only a direct genetic effect. By contrast, polygenic scores for educational attainment and cognitive performance showed no direct genetic effect, but the non-transmitted alleles in the parents were correlated with the child's risk, potentially due to indirect genetic effects and/or parental assortment for these traits4. Indeed, as expected under parental assortment, we show that common variant predisposition for neurodevelopmental conditions is correlated with the rare variant component of risk. These findings indicate that future studies should investigate the possible role and nature of indirect genetic effects on rare neurodevelopmental conditions, and consider the contribution of common and rare variants simultaneously when studying cognition-related phenotypes.

Social Background Effects on Educational Outcomes-New Insights from Modern Genetic Science

Sociological theory and empirical research have found that parents' socioeconomic status and related resources affect their children's educational outcomes. Findings from behavior genetics reveal genetic underpinnings of the intergenerational transmission of education, thus altering previous conclusions about purely environmental transmission mechanisms. In recent years, studies in molecular genetics have led to new insights. Genomic data, polygenic scores, and other facets of sociogenomics are increasingly used to advance research in social stratification. Notably, the 2018 discovery of "genetic nurture" suggested that parents' genes influence children above and beyond the genes they directly transmitted to their children. Such indirect genetic effects can be interpreted as consequences of parental behavior, which is itself influenced by the parents' genetics and is essential for their children's environment. Indirect genetic effects fit hand in glove with the sociological literature because they represent environmental transmission mechanisms. For instance, parenting behaviors, which are partly influenced by parents' genes, shape children's home environments and possibly their later educational outcomes. However, current findings based on more sophisticated research designs demonstrate that "genetic nurture" effects are actually much smaller than initially assumed and hence call for a reevaluation of common narratives found in the social stratification literature. In this paper, we review recent developments and ongoing research integrating molecular genetics to study educational outcomes, and we discuss their implications for sociological stratification research.

Confounding Fuels Misinterpretation in Human Genetics

The scientific literature has seen a resurgence of interest in genetic influences on human behavior and socioeconomic outcomes. Such studies face the central difficulty of distinguishing possible causal influences, in particular genetic and non-genetic ones. When confounding between possible influences is not rigorously addressed, it invites over- and misinterpretation of data. We illustrate the breadth of this problem through a discussion of the literature and a reanalysis of two examples. Clark (2023) suggested that patterns of similarity in social status between relatives indicate that social status is largely determined by one's DNA. We show that the paper's conclusions are based on the conflation of genetic and non-genetic transmission, such as wealth, within families. Song & Zhang (2024) posited that genetic variants underlying bisexual behavior are maintained in the population because they also affect risk-taking behavior, thereby conferring an evolutionary fitness advantage through increased sexual promiscuity. In this case, too, we show that possible explanations cannot be distinguished, but only one is chosen and presented as a conclusion. We discuss how issues of confounding apply more broadly to studies that claim to establish genetic underpinnings to human behavior and societal outcomes.

More than nature and nurture, indirect genetic effects on children's academic achievement are consequences of dynastic social processes

Families transmit genes and environments across generations. When parents' genetics affect their children's environments, these two modes of inheritance can produce an 'indirect genetic effect'. Such indirect genetic effects may account for up to half of the estimated genetic variance in educational attainment. Here we tested if indirect genetic effects reflect within-nuclear-family transmission ('genetic nurture') or instead a multi-generational process of social stratification ('dynastic effects'). We analysed indirect genetic effects on children's academic achievement in their fifth to ninth years of schooling in N = 37,117 parent-offspring trios in the Norwegian Mother, Father, and Child Cohort Study (MoBa). We used pairs of genetically related families (parents were siblings, children were cousins; N = 10,913) to distinguish within-nuclear-family genetic-nurture effects from dynastic effects shared by cousins in different nuclear families. We found that indirect genetic effects on children's academic achievement cannot be explained by processes that operate exclusively within the nuclear family.