Do genes make people evil?
—Robert Schreib, Jr., Toms River, N.J.
Daniel Lametti, a neuroscientist at McGill University, responds: The Montreal apartment where I live is rife with evildoers—well, to be precise, there is at least one. A couple of weeks ago my newspaper, routinely delivered at 5 a.m. to my building’s lobby, disappeared before I could scurry out of bed to collect it. To thwart the criminal, I asked my deliveryman to hurl the paper onto my third-floor balcony (thankfully, he has a good arm).
Admittedly, newspaper theft ranks low on the scale of evil acts. Still, I wouldn’t steal a newspaper. I would like to think that under most circumstances I wouldn’t steal at all. But many people do, and many also commit crimes that are much more sinister.
Scientists would like to know the root causes of evil behavior: Is it a product of our genes or environment? The answer appears to involve a combination of the two.
Since the 1960s psychologists have found that children who were abused and neglected are more likely to commit crimes later in life. Even so, researchers noted that most youngsters who are mistreated do not grow up to be criminals. Now our genes come into the picture.
A 2002 study found that a particular variation of a gene predicted antisocial behavior in men who were mistreated as children. The gene controls whether we produce an enzyme called monoamine oxidase A (MAOA), which at low levels has been linked to aggression in mice. The researchers found that boys who were neglected and who possessed a variation of the gene that produced low levels of MAOA were more likely to develop antisocial personality disorder, commit crimes and grow up to have a violent disposition. But those living in a similar environment who produced more of the enzyme rarely developed these problems.
Psychopaths are arguably the evilest of the evildoers. A study published in August 2010 looked at psychopathic tendencies in teenagers with low socioeconomic resources. The researchers found that adolescents who had a variation of another gene, which contributes to how quickly serotonin is recycled in the brain and which has been linked to hostile behavior in children, were more likely to exhibit signs of psychopathy.
These two recent findings provide strong evidence that evil behavior—mass murder, armed robbery, and perhaps even newspaper theft—might be caused by the right set of genes interacting with the wrong environment.
See what we're tweeting about
20 Comments
Add CommentDidn't this article answer its own question? Because it seemed to me that if you take away abuse, negelect, or "low socioeconomic resources" (the poor with no prospects), genes by themselves will not determine social behavior.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting imagery, but this reminds me of the ancient joke about the guy who comes into the office with a complaint that it hurts when he raises his arm. The doctor says don't raise your arm. (Or something similar) If an environmental variable is shown to be major factor in the outcome of the study or behavior, concluding that a genetic predisposition is primarily responsible seems shortsighted, IMO.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEugenics, anyone?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyes, I guess so because JTR also the same way. from his childhood, he was neglected and could very much be possessed a variation of the gene that produced low levels of MAOA. but this means if his children were brought up right, they wouldn't be serial killer like generation before them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is one of the penultimate axioms of modern genetic and psychological research. Genes interact with genes and with environmental factors. Complex traits cannot be accounted for by any single factor. This fact epitomizes the concept of "individual variation".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor those who didn't realize, the question posed by this article is meant to be rhetorical. We know the answer. And if you pay attention to the conclusions of this short piece, you will know the answer too.
Actually, looking twice it appears to be a question and answer session :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople still have free choice. A person can use his evil nature for good purposes. For example, the newspaper thief can become a spy against the enemies of peace and freedom.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAsking what (or who) is evil, or what constitutes an evil act, is so subjective I cannot imagine a scientific explanation much less "cure" for it. What, exactly, are we trying to explain?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople of different religions or cultures often believe outsiders are evil. We think 9/11 was a wicked act, yet a significant part of the world's people found it cause for celebration. Israelis and Palestinians each think the other wicked, and both have theologeons to prove it. Hitler thought of himself as, "the last hope and savior of Western civilization." Bertrand Russell felt Ghengis Khan more wicked than Hitler, but it wouldn't surprise me if Khan had a very high opinion of himself.
If you intend anti-social behavior, that's at least easier to grasp if only statistically. For example some individuals belonging to a given religion or culture can be anti-social toward other members of the group. Still "anti-social" seems hardly worthy of the intensity suggested by "evil". The thief who steals your newspaper is admittedly a scuzzball, but mostly elicits annoyance and contempt.
Perhaps the objective definition of "evil" is simply the "a word commonly used to denounce an individual or people for whom you feel intense anger and hatred."
To imagine science can "cure" such people so you wont hate them anymore seems unlikely.
What a funny research!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan anyone name a behavior that is not a combination of genes and environment?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEnvironment those who survive in could have a heavy effect on one's Life values and world views
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this,IMO.
"If an environmental variable is shown to be major factor in the outcome of the study or behavior, concluding that a genetic predisposition is primarily responsible seems shortsighted, IMO"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI completely agree. It is much more accurate to suggest that the gene has complex functions, some bad in bad environments, and some good in ok and good environments. The overiding concern is to reduce bad environmental factors in all their complexity. Of course this does not dismiss the value of genetic research, but one should never assume or imply a gene has only bad ramifications without solid positive proof.
Okay, I stoal his papur, but I didn't read it cause I don't got enuff eddication
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegardless of what anyone thinks of this article, the general trend of scientific research over the last fifty years tends to show more and more a genetic and, more recently. an epigenetic etiology to human behavior than was ever believed in the past. Much excellent and now accepted research strongly contradicts the old theories of personality that were largely based upon psychiatric interaction with patients rather than research. If the current trends of improving research methods and tools revealing even more evidence of genetic antecedents to behavior continue we will soon be facing a major problem in our concept of criminal justice.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt present we rely heavily on the concept that a criminal must know right from wrong and choose to do wrong in order to be held responsible for his or her criminal actions. The insanity plea is usually limited to those who can prove that they could not distinguish or choose due to a mental disorder.
What happens if science eventually proves that many or even most of us regularly engage in actions that are genetically influenced or even controlled? And even more, that a few of us, perhaps those that we now call "sociopaths" or "criminally insane" will be helpless to control extreme, anti-social behavior?
Do we let such criminals go because they cannot help nor be held morally responsible for their actions? Do we diagnose those likely to be criminals due to their genetic makeup and separate them from society before they can commit crimes against the rest of us?
I think that, as the science of genetic correspondence with behavior progresses we are going to find that we need to rethink a great many social and legal assumptions that we currently seem to accept without question. It should prove interesting.
This article probably goes far beyond any available evidence. Mass murders are rare in this days, and I guess nobody has ever published a genetic study of any of them
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople who use the phrase "enemies of peace and freedom" have a very high rate of being evil. Senator McCarthy is a prime example. If I recall correctly, a number of brutal dictators have used some variation on the phrase to justify genocide. Better to cure the illness than to try to exploit it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would image that when we can identify the cause we will be able to create a cure. I can see it now:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Jimmy you have a choice; we can lock you away for the rest of your life or you can take this pill so that you don't do evil things."
I'd imagine the prison system emptying in a hurry. Think of the cost savings.
The origin of evil in a few (hundred)words.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the universe is purely naturalistic it is nothing more than material "matter in motion". And the entire history of the universe is "uncaring natural events" that are totally oblivious to subjective notions of good and evil, right or wrong, or love and altruism. Thus, there can never ever be a philosophical or scientific basis for evil. What is, simply is! Yet there is evil, that we all recognize as such.
If all living creatures came about by random chance mutations and "ruthless,uncaring" natural selection than there is no philosophical or scientific basis for making any distinctions. Its all about survival,and selfish preservation of the genes, at any cost. What is, simply is! Yet, we award the Nobel Peace prize to those altruistic individuals who have made the greatest sacrifice for humanity.
If, as Darwin stated, the theory of evolution is based on natural selection "preserving that which is useful" then there is absolutely no philosophical or scientific basis for the universal religious instinct, nor humanities belief in any transcendent or supernatural phenomena. For if nothing existed beyond the naturalistic material world, why would such instincts be "preserved", and continue to exist in such great measure.
The reason why humanity has a conscience, and values such qualities as love, caring,kindness, altruism, truth, righteousness, and justice, and can distinguish between good, evil, right and wrong, justice and injustice is because all these phenomena endowed by a creator, in whose image we are made.
That is precisely why any, and every, effort to account for such realities through purely naturalistic "matter in motion" means is doomed from the outset. As all "explanations" ultimately have their feet planted firmly in mid air.
Indeed, all of science is founded on realities that have absolutely no naturalistic answer, including the origin of the universe and life itself. No scientist has the foggiest notion of what energy or matter ultimately is, even though that is what sciences works with. Nor can anyone provide a sustainable or "verifiable answer" as to why we live in a universe of mathematical regularity and predictability, natural laws, sub-atomic and cosmological fine tuning, or countless other realities.
While we all celebrate the progress of science, we must confront the reality that science and methodological naturalism will be forever limited and always tentative, and never ever the final word.
That is why God will always be around.
How come a scientific journal like S.A. transgresses into philosophy, or even 'religion' by broaching 'evil'- causing genes theories???
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this'It's not my department, a la Wernher von Braun
(thanks, Tom Lehrer) would have been the politically correct approach, wouldn't it?
Or take it from the Bard:
'Nothing is either good or bad, but THINKING makes it so"...
And who was it that said
'Tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner'....
Our very cells, which carry on billions of reactions and processes, work according to our genetic code. So, of course, our behavior is influenced by our genetics. And yes, our environment does indeed have an impact as well on our behavior. However, no one is taking into consideration the spiritual aspects of evil, that we are born with an inherent nature to do evil. Let me explain, no one has to teach a child to be selfish, how to hit their brother or sister, how to be disobedient and rebellious....all before the age of 2. We are born with a sinful nature. You could have perfect genes and a perfect environment and you'd still have evil....due to the sinful nature we are born with.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this