The Science section of the Times often has useful articles, but whether it is in the news or the science section, they continue to repeat and embellish a mythological understanding of science that is enough to make one wish that the repetition of certain ideas should be made illegal.
In an article by Benedict Carey, Some Politics May Be Etched in the Genes, a number of remarkably inane and inaccurate comments are made. (Hat tip: Pejmanesque)
It starts off with a relatively meaningless and innocuous statement:
Political scientists have long held that people's upbringing and experience determine their political views. A child raised on peace protests and Bush-loathing generally tracks left as an adult, unless derailed by some powerful life experience. One reared on tax protests and a hatred of Kennedys usually lists to the right.
And goes down hill from there:
But on the basis of a new study, a team of political scientists is arguing that people's gut-level reaction to issues like the death penalty, taxes and abortion is strongly influenced by genetic inheritance. The new research builds on a series of studies that indicate that people's general approach to social issues - more conservative or more progressive - is influenced by genes.
There is some superficial description of the study's methodology:
From an extensive battery of surveys on personality traits, religious beliefs and other psychological factors, the researchers selected 28 questions most relevant to political behavior. The questions asked people "to please indicate whether or not you agree with each topic," or are uncertain on issues like property taxes, capitalism, unions and X-rated movies. Most of the twins had a mixture of conservative and progressive views. But over all, they leaned slightly one way or the other.
The researchers then compared dizygotic or fraternal twins, who, like any biological siblings, share 50 percent of their genes, with monozygotic, or identical, twins, who share 100 percent of their genes.
Calculating how often identical twins agree on an issue and subtracting the rate at which fraternal twins agree on the same item provides a rough measure of genes' influence on that attitude. A shared family environment for twins reared together is assumed.
I do not expect people without some minimal knowledge of science and the scientific method to be able to adequately understand how science works. Furthermore, I don't expect anyone without a minimal knowledge of genetics to understand how genes express themselves. But I did once expect (and we all should expect) a reporter for our most prominent daily newspaper, the "paper of record", to have a minimum level of competency before going off and writing on a subject like genetics. This study, as described, is so nonsensical as to be worse than a parody.
Where do I start?
First of all, there is almost nothing of genetics to this study. Genetics is the study of genes and how they are reproduced and expressed. We now know, at a minimum, that genes are expressed under the impact of an incredible array of internal and external forces. During embryonic development, there are multiple feedback loops which influence the expression of various genes at the level of DNA, RNA, protein folding, altered expression of sections of DNA based on other agents in the nucleus; I could go on. Furthermore, the end product of the expression of a gene is a protein. For example, a cell will produce a protein which directs the formation of a chemical signal (after multiple complex steps with feedback all along the way) which is then released into the intracellular space. This chemical signal then influences the cell(s) next to it (through another complex series of steps) to turn on a gene or genes that express a different protein. The next door neighbor cell(s) then develop(s) in a slightly different direction from the signaler, and the embryo differentiates. These mechanisms are just being worked out now in a rudimentary way, but it is safe to say that one thing is abundantly clear: Genes direct a cell to produce proteins and proteins can do many things, but they do not produce attitudes or behavior.
Once the child is born, genes continue to be turned on and off throughout life. Genes are involved in creating and strengthening the neural connections that form the basis of memories and behavior. How neural networks change and reorganize in reaction to the environment is another complex topic that is even further form clear description than the embryological development. I made an attempt to describe how neural networks might work in understanding behavior and change in several posts, staring with Changes: Part I, including Part IA, a Digression & Changes: Part II, and concluding with Changes: Part III. I described how some feedback loops work in Homeostasis and Conservatism.
Now take a look at the article's conclusions:
As found in previous studies, attitudes about issues like school prayer, property taxes and the draft were among the most influenced by inheritance, the researchers found. Others like modern art and divorce were less so. And in the twins' overall score, derived from 28 questions, genes accounted for 53 percent of the differences.
But after correcting for the tendency of politically like-minded men and women to marry each other, the researchers also found that the twins' self-identification as Republican or Democrat was far more dependent on environmental factors like upbringing and life experience than was their social orientation, which the researchers call ideology. Inheritance accounted for 14 percent of the difference in party, the researchers found.
In tracking attitudes over the years, geneticists have found that social attitudes tend to stabilize in the late teens and early 20's, when young people begin to fend for themselves.
When reporting on science, the reporters love the precision implied by the numbers. The idea that precisely 14 percent of the variation in party identification between Republican and Democrat is bizarrely nonsensical. To paraphrase Wolfgang Pauli from a different context: "That conclusion is worthless. It isn't even wrong!" However, despite the fact that the conclusion is nonsense, it does have its usefulness tot he liberal elite in our culture, in a perverse way. Every time another scientific study is cited reporting on the existence of a "gay gene" or that a certain behavior is "inherited", the reductionist, overly simplistic explanation offered, adds to the idea that people are not responsible for much of their behavior. If behavior is genetically determined, then that no one, [with the exception of those who are members of the designated incorrect "ruling class" ie, rich, white Christians, according to Howard Dean], is ever really responsible for their own behavior.
Presumably, this means that only a special elite (presumably genetically selected to be leaders, if we are to beleive studies like this) can conduct affairs of state. It undermines free will, which undermines responsibility, which undermines democracy.
While much of what I describe can be attributable to ignorance and laziness, the MSM, probably unconsciously, is simplifying in a way which supports their unspoken need to offer a maternalistic (welfare) state as a solution to people's innate helplessness.
Using science in this way perverts science, damages the scientific enterprise (which remains the most successful structure we have found for helping us make sense of the world), and renders intelligent conversation more difficult.
Recent Comments