Three puzzles and eight gaps: what heritability studies and critical commentaries have not paid enough attention to |
| |
Authors: | Peter Taylor |
| |
Institution: | (1) Programs in Science, Technology & Values and Critical & Creative Thinking, University of Massachusetts, Boston, MA 02125, USA |
| |
Abstract: | This article examines eight “gaps” in order to clarify why the quantitative genetics methods of partitioning variation of
a trait into heritability and other components has very limited power to show anything clear and useful about genetic and
environmental influences, especially for human behaviors and other traits. The first two gaps should be kept open; the others
should be bridged or the difficulty of doing so should be acknowledged: 1. Key terms have multiple meanings that are distinct;
2. Statistical patterns are distinct from measurable underlying factors; 3. Translation from statistical analyses to hypotheses
about measurable factors is difficult; 4. Predictions based on extrapolations from existing patterns of variation may not
match outcomes; 5. The partitioning of variation in human studies does not reliably estimate the intended quantities; 6. Translation
from statistical analyses to hypotheses about the measurable factors is even more difficult in light of the possible heterogeneity
of underlying genetic or environmental factors; 7. Many steps lie between the analysis of observed traits and interventions
based on well-founded claims about the causal influence of genetic or environmental factors; 8. Explanation of variation within
groups does not translate to explanation of differences among groups. At the start, I engage readers’ attention with three
puzzles that have not been resolved by past debates. The puzzles concern generational increases in IQ test scores, the possibility
of underlying heterogeneity, and the translation of methods from selective breeding into human genetics. After discussing
the gaps, I present each puzzle in a new light and point to several new puzzles that invite attention from analysts of variation
in quantitative genetics and in social science more generally. The article’s critical perspectives on agricultural, laboratory,
and human heritability studies are intended to elicit further contributions from readers across the fields of history, philosophy,
sociology, and politics of biology and in the sciences. |
| |
Keywords: | |
本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录! |
|