science as social control: the genetics agenda

[emordnilap]

Excellent article on the manipulation of science for political ends.

Why is the US government funding excessively genetic determinist projects such as this in the first place?

The probable answer is that the US education system has many problems, which are exemplified by its low rankings on international scales. There is a danger that blame for these problems might be laid at the door of the secretary for education, the administration, or the President. This possibility could be neatly sidestepped, however, if educational attainment was genetically fated.

Essentially the same political logic applies to any human disease or disorder, or even any social complaint. If the disorder, for example autism, can be shown (or even just suggested) to have a partial genetic origin then a barn door is opened for any accused vaccine maker, or polluter, or policymaker, to evade the blame–both legally and in the perception of the public.

This opportunity within biology to make inequality (not just of wealth) look ‘natural’ has been recognized for a long time. Harvard Geneticist Richard Lewontin summed it up his 1992 book ‘The Doctrine of DNA: Biology as Ideology’: “The notion that the lower classes are biologically inferior to the upper classes……..is meant to legitimate the structures of inequality in our society by putting a biological gloss on them”

The article asks why a study that shows fully 98% of all variation in educational attainment is accounted for by factors other than a person's simple genetic make-up is not headline news. (Maybe because it's 'duh'? I mean, it's hardly surprising.)

The broader explanation, which needs to account, for example, for the fact that Science magazine would publish such a discrepant conclusion, is that the science of human biology is in the grip of hidden political forces.

More here.

[RenewableCandy]

Yes it as puzzled me for years why anyone has even bothered with the concept of an "obesity gene", when it's dang obvious that a generation ago that said gene was absent or ineffective.

Similarly, far too much cancer research effort is spent peering into the finer points of genetics and cellular biology, when what would be far more useful would be definitive figures on the risks posed by various artificial substances in our environments.

[biffvernon]

Oh that would never do. Artificial substances are made by folk who make a living out of their making.

[Little John]

The thing about genetics that is never fully explained to the population at large is that whilst genetic expressions are real enough, that expression always occurs in an environmental context.

A simple example is the gene for sickle-cell disease, which tends to be far more prevalent in people of Afro-Caribbean descent. Individuals with only one copy of the gene, in hot countries where malaria is prevalent, are far less likely to contract malaria and, if they do, are far less likely to die from it. Conversely, in double dose, in colder countries, it reduces lifespan considerably.

Another example would be the so called genetic disposal to ADHD. In some contexts (such as a school classroom requiring order and abstract, intellectual attentiveness) it will be pathologically diagnosed. In other contexts it might go unnoticed or, even, be advantageous to an individual.

It's all about context.

[emordnilap]

Similarly, far too much cancer research effort is spent peering into the finer points of genetics and cellular biology, when what would be far more useful would be definitive figures on the risks posed by various artificial substances in our environments.

Yus, double yus and 120% yus, which is why the subject has relevance in a forum about energy. So much money is poured into searching for 'cures' for cancers when prevention would be sooo cheap. Preventative healthcare will form major focus of a post-fossil fuel world (and should now); lessons can be learned from Cuba.