Nurturing Our Better Nature: A Proposal for Cognitive Integrity as a Foundation for Autonomous Living.

As we account for the genetic and environmental influences on morally-relevant character traits like intellectual honesty, industriousness, and self-control, do we risk becoming ever less accountable to ourselves? Behavioral genetic research suggests that about half the variance in such character traits is likely attributable to heredity, and a small fraction to the shared family environment. The remaining 40-60% is explained by neither genes nor family upbringing. This raises the question: how active a role can individuals play in shaping their own character? What, if anything, can and should one do to take responsibility for the kind of person one becomes? This paper sketches a novel theoretical proposal for addressing these questions, by drawing on several previously disparate lines of research within behavior genetics, philosophy, and experimental psychology. Our core proposal concerns the metacognitive capacity to engage in active, reality-based cognition, as opposed to passive, stimulus-driven processing or an active pretense at cognition (i.e., self-deception). We review arguments and evidence indicating that human beings both can and should exercise this capacity, which we have termed "cognitive integrity." We argue that doing so can in a certain sense "set us free" of our genetic and environmental influences-not by rendering them irrelevant, but by giving us the awareness and motivation to manage them more responsibly. This perspective has important implications for guiding the development of psychosocial interventions, and for informing how we direct ourselves more generally, both as individuals and as a society.

Ethical, legal, social, and policy implications of behavioral genetics.

The field of behavioral genetics has engendered a host of moral and social concerns virtually since its inception. The policy implications of a genetic basis for behaviors are widespread and extend beyond the clinic to the socially important realms of education, criminal justice, childbearing, and child rearing. The development of new techniques and analytic approaches, including whole-genome sequencing, noninvasive prenatal genetic testing, and optogenetics, has clearly changed the study of behavioral genetics. However, the social context of biomedical research has also changed profoundly over the past few decades, and in ways that are especially relevant to behavioral genetics. The ever-widening scope of behavioral genetics raises ethical, legal, social, and policy issues in the potential new applications to criminal justice, education, the military, and reproduction. These issues are especially critical to address because of their potentially disproportionate effects on vulnerable populations such as children, the unborn, and the incarcerated.

Behavioral Genetics and the Forensic Mental Health Provider: An Overview.

The area of behavioral genetics has sufficiently entered the area of forensic mental health work that providers should have some working knowledge of the strengths and limitations of these exciting technical advances. Using MAOA as an example, this essay reviews some of the recurring themes in forensic behavioral genetics and suggests additional ways in which the technology might be used in legal matters.

The Trustworthiness Deficit in Postgenomic Research on Human Intelligence.

In the past, work on racial and ethnic variation in brain and behavior was marginalized within genetics. Against the backdrop of genetics' eugenic legacy, wide consensus held such research to be both ethically problematic and methodologically controversial. But today it is finding new opportunistic venues in a global, transdisciplinary, data-rich postgenomic research environment in which such a consensus is increasingly strained. The postgenomic sciences display worrisome deficits in their ability to govern and negotiate standards for making postgenomic claims in the transdisciplinary space between human population variation research, studies of intelligence, neuroscience, and evolutionary biology. Today some researchers are pursuing the genomics of intelligence on a newly grand scale. They are sequencing large numbers of whole genomes of people considered highly intelligent (by varying empirical and social measures) in the hope of finding gene variants predictive of intelligence. Troubling and at times outlandish futurist claims accompany this research. Scientists involved in this research have openly discussed the possibility of marketing prenatal tests for intelligence, of genetic engineering or selective embryo implantation to increase the likelihood of a high-IQ child, and of genotyping children to guide their education. In this permissive and contested environment, what would trustworthy research on the genomics of high intelligence look like?

Genetic Prediction.

The fundamental reason that the genetics of behavior has remained so controversial for so long is that the layer of theory between data and their interpretation is thicker and more opaque than in more established areas of science. The finding that variations in tiny snippets of DNA have small but detectable relations to variation in behavior surprises no one, at least no one who was paying attention to the twin studies. How such snippets of DNA are related to differences in behavior-known as the gene-to-behavior pathway-is the great theoretical problem of modern behavioral genetics. Given that intentional human breeding is a horrific prospect, what kind of technology might we want (or fear) out of human behavioral genetics? One possibility is a technology that could predict important behavioral characteristics of humans based on their genomes alone. A moment's thought suggests significant benefits and risks that might be associated with such a possibility, but for the moment, just consider how convincing it would be if on the day of a baby's birth we could make meaningful predictions about whether he or she would become a concert pianist or an alcoholic. This article will consider where we are right now as regards that possibility, using human height and intelligence as the primary examples.

Why Is Studying the Genetics of Intelligence So Controversial?

From the very beginning, studies of the nature and nurture of intelligence have been closely associated with an interest in intervening, and those interventions have been surrounded by controversy. The nature of those controversies has not always been the same, however. Since the mid-nineteenth century, when Francis Galton imagined a science that would assess the extent to which a trait like "genius" was due to nature or due to nurture, science and technology have changed dramatically, and so have the interventions that have been envisioned in light of those developments. A scientist today can search for particular stretches of DNA and assess whether differences in those stretches are associated with differences in a human trait of interest; a genetic counselor today can genetically test an individual (be it an embryo, fetus, newborn, child, or adult) and provide information about what that genetic result means, allowing for interventions that can range from terminating a pregnancy to prescribing chemotherapy. So when one asks a question like, "Why is studying the genetics of intelligence controversial?," it is important to realize up front that the answer will be, "It can be controversial for a variety of different reasons, and those reasons have evolved over time." The purpose of this essay is to provide a survey of the controversies that surround genetic studies of intelligence. With the survey in place, I will then draw out several lessons both for scientists who study the genetics of intelligence as well as for science studies scholars (bioethicists, philosophers, historians, sociologists) who reflect and comment on the controversies surrounding that research.

On the genetic modification of psychology, personality, and behavior.

I argue that the use of heritable modifications for psychology, personality, and behavior should be limited to the reversal or prevention of relatively unambiguous instances of pathology or likely harm (e.g. sociopathy). Most of the likely modifications of psychological personality would not be of this nature, however, and parents therefore should not have the freedom to make such modifications to future children. I argue by examining the viewpoints of both the individual and society. For individuals, modifications would interfere with their capacity for self-determination in a way that undermines the very concept of self-determination. I argue that modification of psychology and personality is unlike present parenting in morally significant ways. For society, modification offers a medium for power to manipulate the makeup of persons and populations, possibly causing biological harm to the species and altering our conceptions of social responsibility.

Dealing with the long-term social implications of research.

Biomedical and behavioral research may affect strongly held social values and thereby create significant controversy over whether such research should be permitted in the first place. Institutional review boards (IRBs) responsible for protecting the rights and welfare of participants in research are sometimes faced with review of protocols that have significant implications for social policy and the potential for negative social consequences. Although IRB members often raise concerns about potential long-term social implications in protocol review, federal regulations strongly discourage IRBs from considering them in their decisions. Yet IRBs often do consider the social implications of research protocols and sometimes create significant delays in initiating or even prevent such research. The social implications of research are important topics for public scrutiny and professional discussion. This article examines the reasons that the federal regulations preclude IRBs from assessing the social risks of research, and examines alternative approaches that have been used with varying success by national advisory groups to provide such guidance. The article concludes with recommendations for characteristics of a national advisory group that could successfully fulfill this need, including sustainability, independence, diverse and relevant expertise, and public transparency.

Scientific responsibility for the dissemination and interpretation of genetic research: lessons from the "warrior gene" controversy.

This paper discusses the announcement by a team of researchers that they identified a genetic influence for a range of "antisocial" behaviours in the New Zealand Maori population (dubbed the "warrior gene"). The behaviours included criminality, violence, gambling and alcoholism. The reported link between genetics and behaviour met with much controversy. The scientists were described as hiding behind a veneer of supposedly "objective" western science, using it to perpetuate "racist and oppressive discourses". In this paper we examine what went wrong in the dissemination of the research. We chose as our framework the debate around the "internal/external" responsibilities of scientists. Using this discourse we argue that when the researchers ventured to explain their research in terms of social phenomena, they assumed a duty to ensure that their findings were placed "in context". By "in context", we argue that evidence of any genetic influence on behavioural characteristics should not be reported in isolation, but instead presented alongside other environmental, cultural and socio-economic influences that may also contribute to the studied behaviour. Rather than imposing a new obligation on scientists, we find this duty to contextualise results is in keeping with the spirit of codes of ethics already in place. Lessons from the "warrior gene" controversy may assist researchers elsewhere to identify potential areas of conflict before they jeopardise research relationships, or disseminate findings in a manner that fuels misleading and/or potentially discriminatory attitudes in society.

Risky individuals and the politics of genetic research into aggressiveness and violence.

New genetic technologies promise to generate valuable insights into the aetiology of several psychiatric conditions, as well as a wider range of human and animal behaviours. Advances in the neurosciences and the application of new brain imaging techniques offer a way of integrating DNA analysis with studies that are looking at other biological markers of behaviour. While candidate 'genes for' certain conditions, including schizophrenia and bipolar disorders, are said to be 'un-discovered' at a faster rate than they are discovered, many studies are being conducted on personality traits such as aggressiveness and anti-social traits. The clinical applicability and implications of these studies are often discussed within the scientific community. However, little attention has so far been paid to their possible policy implications in relation to criminality management and to Criminal Law itself. Similarly, the related ethical issues arising in the field of crime control, and the tensions between enhancing security for society and protecting civil liberties, are currently under-explored. This paper investigates these ethical issues by focusing on the views of those professionals - including judges, lawyers, probation officers and social workers - who work with individuals 'deemed at risk' of violent and aggressive behaviours. It also discusses and problematizes mainstream rhetoric and arguments around the notion of 'risky individuals'.

Who should fund and control the direction of human behavior genetics? Review of Nuffield Council on Bioethics 2002 report, genetics and human behaviour: the ethical context.

In this (Nuffield Council on Bioethics 2002), the third in its series on ethics and related issues in genetics (see also Nuffield Council on Bioethics 1993 and Nuffield Council on Bioethics 1998), the Nuffield Council has focused on four'normal' behaviors; intelligence, personality, antisocial behavior and sexual orientation. This is a narrow range of behaviors and one where their discussion of the potential impact of predictive genetic testing is probably inappropriate. They also take an unduly narrow view of the purposes of behavior genetics in the 21st century. It is not simply to estimate heritability but to understand more about the structure of behavior and the processes which underlie it. Their narrow focus and their negative approach to the history and achievements of genetics is reflected in their less than positive support for future behavior genetic research. Behavior geneticists need to do more to publicize what their field has achieved in order to counter the very extensive antibehavior genetics initiatives which are almost unique in science. At the same time, organizations such as the Nuffield Council need to consider carefully the impact their deliberations may have on research funding.

Genetics and education: the ethics of shaping human identity.

This paper suggests an analogy between education and genetic interventions as means of shaping the identity of children and future adults. It proposes to look at issues discussed in the philosophy of education as a possible source of insight for ethical guidelines regarding future genetic interventions. The paper focuses on situations of conflict between parents and state regarding the authority to determine the child s best interests. It describes the current formulation of the conflict in the literature as lacking the crucial element of the child s right to a cultural identity. It argues that this element is a necessary component in an ethical analysis of the child s best interests in a multicultural, liberal society which respects diversity. The paper therefore proposes a better model for the moral evaluation of identity-shaping decisions and offers some implications of this model for genetics.

Behavioural genetics: prospects and challenges.

In its 2002 report on the ethical context of behavioural genetics the Nuffield Council on Bioethics concentrated on the genetics of variation within the normal range for behavioural dispositions. The report discusses the historical context of this work and looks at some current work in the fields of IQ, antisocial behaviour and sexuality. It then addresses the ethical implications of this work, both for our understanding of ourselves and in relation to possible applications in areas such as assisted reproduction and the law.

Ethics, public policy and behavioral genetics.

Behavioral genetics is the identification of behavioral traits that are genetically determined, the identification of the genes that are involved, and the discovery of modes of intervention to alter the expected course of the disease. Unlike the classical Mendelian traits, many specific aspects of behavior are, in part, determined by several genes. The corresponding abnormalities of behavior or deficiencies are therefore polygenic. New genetic techniques are leading to the discovery of these genes, and the techniques and knowledge developed in the Human Genome Project make it possible to screen the genome of any individual for the presence of known polymorphisms. This raises great hopes for diagnosis and the individualization of therapy. However, the genetic prediction of unacceptable behavior can further lead to social and occupational discrimination and enforced therapy. This raises serious concerns about how this information will be collected and who will have access to it.

Biological explanations and social responsibility.

The aim of this paper is to show that critics of biological explanations of human nature may be granting too much to those who oppose such explanations when they argue that the truth of genetic determinism implies an end to critical evaluation and reform of our social institutions. This is the case because when we argue that biological determinism exempts us from social critique we are erroneously presupposing that our social values, practices, and institutions have nothing to do with what makes biological explanations troublesome. My argument is that what constitutes a problem for those who are concerned with social justice is not the fact that particular behaviours may be genetically determined, but the fact that our value system, and social institutions create the conditions that make such behaviours problematic. Thus, I will argue that even if genetic determinism were correct, the requirement of assessing and transforming our social practices and institutions would be far from superfluous. Biology is rarely destiny for human beings and the institutions they create.

El Registro de Gemelos de Murcia. Un recurso para la investigación sobre conductas relacionadas con la salud / The Murcia Twin Registry. A resource for research on health-related behaviour

Los diseños genéticamente informativos, y en particular los estudios de gemelos, constituyen la metodología más utilizada para analizar la contribución relativa de los factores genéticos y ambientales a la variabilidad interindividual. Básicamente, consisten en comparar el grado de similitud, con respecto a una característica o rasgo determinado, entre gemelos monocigóticos y dicigóticos. Además de la clásica estimación de heredabilidad, este tipo de registros permite una amplia variedad de análisis únicos por las características de la muestra. El Registro de Gemelos de Murcia es un registro de base poblacional centrado en el análisis de conductas relacionadas con la salud. Las prevalencias de problemas de salud observadas son comparables a las de otras muestras de referencia de ámbito regional y estatal, lo que avala su representatividad. En conjunto, sus características facilitan el desarrollo de diversas modalidades de investigación, además de diseños genéticamente informativos y la colaboración con distintas iniciativas y consorcios (AU)

Genetically informative designs and, in particular, twin studies, are the most widely used methodology to analyse the relative contribution of genetic and environmental factors to inter-individual variability. These studies basically compare the degree of phenotypical similarity between monozygotic and dizygotic twin pairs. In addition to the traditional estimate of heritability, this kind of registry enables a wide variety of analyses which are unique due to the characteristics of the sample. The Murcia Twin Registry is population-based and focused on the analysis of health-related behaviour. The observed prevalence of health problems is comparable to that of other regional and national reference samples, which guarantees its representativeness. Overall, the characteristics of the Registry facilitate developing various types of research as well as genetically informative designs, and collaboration with different initiatives and consortia (AU)