Image: Dan Saelinger
-
What a Plant Knows
How does a Venus flytrap know when to snap shut? Can it actually feel an insect’s tiny, spindly legs? And how do cherry blossoms know when to bloom? Can they...
Read More »
Dozens of studies in the past few years have linked single genes to whether a person is liberal or conservative, has a strong party affiliation or is likely to vote reguarly. The discipline of “genopolitics” has grabbed headlines as a result, but is the claim that a few genes influence political views and actions legitimate?
We don't think so. The kinds of studies that have produced many of the findings we question involve searching for connections between behavior and gene variants that occur frequently in the population. Most of the 20,000 to 25,000 human genes come in hundreds or thousands of common variations, which often consist of slight differences in a gene's sequence of DNA code letters or in repeats of a particular segment. For the most part, scientists do not know what effect, if any, these common variants, known as polymorphisms, have on the functioning of the proteins they encode. Genes predict certain well-defined physiological diseases—such as hereditary breast cancer and the risk of developing Alzheimer's disease—but when it comes to complex human behaviors such as voting, the link is tenuous at best.
One of the most prominent papers showing a link between a few polymorphisms and political behavior was published by James Fowler and Christopher Dawes in 2008 in the Journal of Politics. They concluded that people who possess certain variants of a gene called MAOA are more likely to vote than those who do not and that people with a particular variant of a gene known as 5-HTT who regularly attend religious services are also more likely to vote. We do not believe that these conclusions are right.
Like most claims that a specific gene predicts variations in a particular behavior, the findings were based on what is known as a candidate gene association study. Instead of surveying all the genes in the human genome for possible associations with a given trait, such studies look for potential links between polymorphisms for one or two candidate genes and a specific trait. This type of study can be a relatively inexpensive way to conduct research because it usually depends on large databases of information that already exist, but it can lead researchers astray.
We identified two major problems with the study of Fowler and Dawes. First, they misclassified the genes they were studying in a way that amplified the statistical significance of their findings. Second, their methods fell short of adequately taking into account population stratification, in which the frequency of polymorphisms varies from one ethnic population to another as a result of unique ancestral patterns of migration and mating practices. (This is a common problem in the field.) When we analyzed the different ethnic groups in detail, we found inconsistencies. For instance, in the case of Asians, Native Americans and nonwhite Hispanics, we saw the opposite trend—toward less voting.
Yet we have more fundamental issues with these kinds of studies. The same polymorphisms of these same two genes that have been tied to voting are also said to predict variation in other behavioral and physical traits—irritable bowel syndrome, schizophrenia and premature ejaculation. Such broad findings beggar belief. The idea that a pair of genes could be responsible for so many disparate behaviors is biologically implausible.
Recent research provides growing evidence that genetic influences on human behavior involve thousands of different genes, which influence one another and the environment in intricate ways. Differences in aggression among fruit flies, to take just one example, entails the activity of more than 4,000 genes. The chance that any complex human behavior—such as voting—might have one or two major predisposing genes is practically zero.
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN ONLINE
Comment on this article at ScientificAmerican.com/nov2012
This article was originally published with the title The Voting Gene.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
9 Comments
Add CommentI've always wanted to find the gene that causes people to reduce everything to genetic determinants.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLOL, good one sjn! I think that tendency is in all of us. We want clean simple easy answers when in reality everything is complicated and messy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGenes may not predict voting but it does predict empathy. Keep looking and you'll find the code for liberal, conservative and moderate. The combination of the code comes up randomly, otherwise we'd all vote for one party. It's baked into the social aspect of the species to keep the pot stirred. If you want to find the code start with the wolf/dog sequence. Good luck.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat gene(s) make us point nuclear weapons at each other?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDisagree. Some of voting is situational (it's the economy). Some is ego boo (who likes or is people like me, what does my peer group think). Some is intensively selfish (I know my opinion on what is right, I intend to vote to impose it or at least to support it). A lot of that if personality-filtered.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPersonality is life experience. A genetic base. Rearing. Experience. Some of all that in turn reflects things about oneself that one notices or that many other people react to in particular ways. Health at a particular age. Sex. Skin color.
Some of THAT is absolutely genetic.
The 'moral instincts' there assembly into 'moral perspectives' and their ranking, a LOT of that seems to be genetic, particularly by being sex-linked. NOT sex-determined; can't think of much of anything human that is genetically DETERMINED, not even height. And loom at Helen Keller.
So what I want to know is, why do people feel this type of research is demeaning or dangerous? OGF COURSE it isn't determinative not even of the proposition that some specific gene is in fact significant at all...
Wrong! Read Baron-Cohen, The Science of Evil!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think that science will never find genes for specific behavior for tow reasons: First we inherit traits and not behaviors. Second; I am convinced that Brain as a structure is genetic e.g we inherit regions of brain from our parents that are responsible for this trait or that. If science continue to ignore facts from real life we eill never reach the real facts of our genetic behavior.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat exactly might the "science" of evil be? evil is an opinion...are you saying they HAVE figured out scientific determinants/predictors of what folks think is evil? If that's what you mean your argument is rather a mobius strip...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI didn't think anyone in the scientific community would seriously entertain this nonsense. Most people copy how their parents voted as they got most of their values from them. Those that don't have other factors, such as reacting against parents they didn't get on with, peer pressure, and the big one itself, how the government behaves. But I suppose you had to find something to fill a blank page.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this