Genetics is the science concerned with the study of genes and their effects. 
Eugenics is a policy of selective breeding - encouraging good genes and 
eliminating bad ones.  The two are easily distinguished.    Eugenics is done 
by denying opportunities for reproduction to animals or humans with inferior 
genes, or by culling defective specimens, and conversely impoving 
opportunities for the desired breeding stock.   The techniques of eugenics 
were developed through animal breeding in the eighteenth century and were 
extended to humans in several countries in the 20th century. Genetics, by 
contrast, is a body of knowledge, not a policy.  Identifying the genes which 
lead to type 1 diabetes should, in principle, make it possible to develop 
therapies which counteract the effect of those genes and so prevent the 
development of the disease.  This approach is contrary to eugenic policy, 
because facilitating the survival and replication of people with disorders 
will in principle increase the survival and replication of "defective" 
genes.

The science of genetics is still suffering, unfortunately,  from the intellectual set 
that eugenicists like Galton imposed on the subject.  .  
In the early 20th century, defective biology or "degeneracy" was 
assumed to be at the root of crime, mental deficiency, mental illness, 
illegitimacy and pauperism.   We are not much further on.  A quick search on 
Google for the "genetic cause of ..." disorders finds serious contributions 
on the supposed genetic causes of alcoholism,  addiction, depression, 
dyslexia, gambling , infidelity, stuttering, schizophrenia  and violence. 
The standard methodology in genetic studies begins with a family, or with 
twin studies - people who share a genetic base, and who exhibit the 
characteristics which are being looked for.  The relatives are tested to see 
what distinctive genes they have in common.   Those genes are then taken to 
account for the characteristic.   In other words, the studies are assuming 
at the outset that the issues are genetic, and that their job is to discover 
which gene is responsible.

There are two key problems with this.  The first is that the disorders are 
not necessarily "genetic" in origin at all.  A limited number of diseases 
are purely genetic, in the sense that genes are sufficient to determine the 
outcome; we know that many conditions which can reasonably be thought of as 
genetically based (like myopia, hypertension or longevity) in fact depend 
heavily on behaviour and the social environment, while for others (like 
bowel cancer or obesity), even if there is a genetic component, genetic 
inheritance is not usually a sufficient condition.  The main defence of 
genetic research in these fields is that if genes make a contribution, so 
can therapies which nullify or enhance the action of the relevant genes. 
However, some of the disorders which are being considered in this light are 
assumed to be genetic despite there being no direct evidence of any distinct 
genetic component.  The  "personality disorders" and "intelligence" that 
Martin Sewell referred to are social constructs, not biological outcomes. 
I understand (though it's an old figure, and I may be out of date) that 
there is no attributable organic reason for a considerable majority of cases 
of learning disability; and that even among those cases where there is an 
organic reason, like brain damage or problems in the womb, many are not 
genetic.

The second problem with the method is that saying that something "runs in 
the family" is not the same as saying it is genetic. Families often have 
other common issues - typically including cultural influences, diets, 
environment and  similarities in economic circumstances - and twins have 
these overlaps in spades.  The best that family-based genetic studies can do 
is to identify genes that may be associated with a factor.  There needs 
subsequently to be some way of testing the hypothesis that the gene has the 
effect that is being attributed to it - testing both whether the 
distribution of the gene is reliably connected with the problem under study, 
and whether the problem does not occur in people who do not have the gene. 
None of the claimed associations I have referred to does anything like this.

Paul Spicker
Professor of Public Policy
Centre for Public Policy and Management
The Robert Gordon University
Garthdee Road
Aberdeen AB10 7QE
Scotland

Tel: +44 1224263120
Fax: + 44 1224263434

Website: http://www.rgu.ac.uk/publicpolicy/ <http://www.rgu.ac.uk/publicpolicy/>  

******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************