Beware of the phony horserace between genes and environments

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.

Wrestling with Social and Behavioral Genomics: Risks, Potential Benefits, and Ethical Responsibility

In this consensus report by a diverse group of academics who conduct and/or are concerned about social and behavioral genomics (SBG) research, the authors recount the often-ugly history of scientific attempts to understand the genetic contributions to human behaviors and social outcomes. They then describe what the current science-including genomewide association studies and polygenic indexes-can and cannot tell us, as well as its risks and potential benefits. They conclude with a discussion of responsible behavior in the context of SBG research. SBG research that compares individuals within a group according to a "sensitive" phenotype requires extra attention to responsible conduct and to responsible communication about the research and its findings. SBG research (1) on sensitive phenotypes that (2) compares two or more groups defined by (a) race, (b) ethnicity, or (c) genetic ancestry (where genetic ancestry could easily be misunderstood as race or ethnicity) requires a compelling justification to be conducted, funded, or published. All authors agree that this justification at least requires a convincing argument that a study's design could yield scientifically valid results; some authors would additionally require the study to have a socially favorable risk-benefit profile.

Wrestling with Public Input on an Ethical Analysis of Scientific Research

Bioethicists frequently call for empirical researchers to engage participants and community members in their research, but don't themselves typically engage community members in their normative research. In this article, we describe an effort to include members of the public in normative discussions about the risks, potential benefits, and ethical responsibilities of social and behavioral genomics (SBG) research. We reflect on what might-and might not- be gained from engaging the public in normative scholarship and on lessons learned about public perspectives on the risks and potential benefits of SBG research and the responsible conduct and communication of such research. We also provide procedural lessons for others in bioethics who are interested in engaging members of the public in their research.

Ethical, anticipatory genomics research on human behavior means celebrating disagreement

Despite the many social and ethical considerations in human genetics, researchers and communities remain largely siloed as for-profit, direct-to-consumer genetic testing and the application of polygenic scores to in vitro fertilization services become increasingly prevalent. The multifaceted challenges facing genomics, both empirical and ethical, require collaborations that foster critical dialogue and honest debate between communities inside and outside the research enterprise. This piece argues that in order to respond to the premature or inappropriate use of genomic data in industry, the scientific community needs to first embrace, understand, and be in dialogue about its disagreements. We introduce the research framework of adversarial collaboration as a way to celebrate disagreement and productively work toward policy-informed, ethical, and anticipatory genomics research.

Social Equality in an Alternate World

Genes have long been used to validate social inequality. The Genetic Lottery: Why DNA Matters for Social Equality, by Kathryn Paige Harden, attempts not only to reclaim genetic research on human behavior from its eugenic past but also to argue that genetic research can be used to understand and enhance social equality. This review essay illustrates why embracing a political agenda in which genetics matter for social equality will not in practice advance efforts to reduce social inequality. It argues that the points raised in The Genetic Lottery would be important in an alternate world in which structural inequalities have ceased to exist, but not in the world we live in today.