Our hunger for “The Gene for X” stories and other simplistic explanations

Can one gene make a difference?  Absolutely.  One case in point is Tay-Sachs Disease, a physical condition  where the central nervous system begins to degenerate in a four to six month old child who, until the onset of the disease, appeared normal.  Individuals with Tay-Sachs disease have two copies of a genetic mutation, one copy inherited from each parent.  In a carrier of Tay-Sachs, only one gene is different when compared to non-carriers. That’s how important one gene can be.   When we’re talking about complex behaviors, though, can the “cause” really boil down to one gene?  It’s unlikely.

I recently had the opportunity to attend several sessions of the “Future Directions in Genetic Studies” workshop at Washington University in St. Louis. On Friday, I attended a lively seminar led by Gar Allen, who teaches biology at Washington University. His talk was entitled “What’s Wrong with ‘The Gene for . . .’? Problems with Human Behavior Genetics and How to Combat Them.”

Allen opened his talk by asserting that claims about the genetic basis for complex human behaviors and traits are “notoriously difficult to investigate and replicate.” There is a long and troubled history of claims that genes are the cause of various conditions. For instance, in 1969, Arthur Jensen became the center of a storm when he wrote that Caucasians were more intelligent than African-Americans, suggesting that there was a genetic basis for this difference. Jensen’s position has been heavily criticized by numerous scientists on numerous …

Share

Continue ReadingOur hunger for “The Gene for X” stories and other simplistic explanations

A widespread American epidemic: intellectual brain freeze

I don’t think anyone has yet invented a specific word for this phenomenon, but too many Americans are suffering from an intense craving for simple one-step answers to life’s most important questions.  Though people have always taken explanatory leaps, the mainstream media seems to tolerate them like never before. In the political realm, for example, the media should be ridiculing simpleton answers, but often doesn’t As case in point is Bush’s preposterous claim that “It’s better to fight them there than here.”  As though doing the former protects us from the latter.  Perhaps encouraged by the simple-mindedness of President Bush, the news media has taken a hands-off approach incredible amounts of simplistic nonsense. 

Many simplistic explanations, but not all, are religious claims. Before you crank out those e-mails arguing that I’m painting with too broad a brush, I will readily admit that many people who sincerely follow religions are incredibly deep and skeptical thinkers (though they have a hands-off approach to skeptically examining their own religious beliefs). Therefore, I am not arguing that all of those people who consider themselves religious are shallow-minded ignoramuses.  Nor am I claiming that those who are nonbelievers are necessarily disciplined and knowledgeable skeptical thinkers.  There are plenty of simplistic folks of all stripes running around.

In my own mind, I conceive of our over-willingness to accept simplistic views as a “treasure hunt” mentality.  All too many people seek ready-made explanations, where finding an minimally acceptable “answer” gives them a license shut down their sense …

Share

Continue ReadingA widespread American epidemic: intellectual brain freeze