An Introduction to Thinking about Trustworthy Research into the Genetics of Intelligence

Abstract

The advent of new technologies has rekindled some hopes that it will be possible to identify genetic variants that will help to explain why individuals are different with respect to complex traits. At least one leader in the development of “whole genome sequencing”—the Chinese company BGI—has been quite public about its commitment to using the technique to investigate the genetics of intelligence in general and high intelligence in particular. Because one needs large samples to detect the small effects associated with small genetic differences in the sequence of those base pairs, to make headway with the new sequencing technologies, one also needs to enlist much larger numbers of study participants than geneticists have enrolled before. In an effort to increase the size of a sample, one team of researchers approached the Center for Talented Youth at Johns Hopkins University. They wanted to gain access to records concerning participants in CTY's ongoing Study of Exceptional Talent, and they wanted to approach those individuals to see if they would be willing to share samples of their DNA. We agreed that CTY's dilemma about whether to give the researchers access to those records raised larger questions about the ethics of research into the genetics of intelligence, and we decided to hold a workshop at The Hastings Center that could examine those questions. Our purpose was to create what, borrowing from Sarah Richardson, we came to call a “transformative conversation” about research into the genetics of general cognitive ability—a conversation that would take a wide and long view and would involve a diverse group of stakeholders, including both people who have been highly critical of the research and people who engage in it. This collection of essays, which grew out of that workshop, is intended to provide an introduction to and exploration of this complex and important area.

Genetics and Education: Recent Developments in the Context of an Ugly History and an Uncertain Future

“…Due to its uniquely sensitive role in discourses regarding social inequality and individual differences, the field of genetics must avoid the repetition of previous mistakes by responsibly tempering claims as they pertain to education. In particular, research needs be attentive to the structural realities that underlie many observed educational differences among groups (Callier & Bonham, 2015; Parens & Appelbaum, 2015): findings should be grounded in the appropriate contexts, and interpretations that acknowledge these realities should be favored.…”

“…Their papers, especially their discovery work on the genetics of educational attainment (Okbay et al, 2016; Rietveld et al, 2013), are all accompanied by carefully worded online FAQs that offer context and clarity for interpreting their findings. This practice has been framed as “the best example of prophylaxis against hyperbole” (Parens & Appelbaum, 2015). They give clear guidance against overly simplistic interpretations of their findings: “Did you find ‘the gene’ for cognitive performance?…”

Genetics and Education: Recent developments in the context of an ugly history and an uncertain future

“…Due to its uniquely sensitive role in discourses regarding social inequality and individual differences, those in the field of genetics must help to avoid the repetition of previous mistakes by responsibly tempering claims as they pertain to education. In particular, research needs be attentive to the structural realities that underlie many observed educational differences between groups (Callier & Bonham, 2015;Parens & Appelbaum, 2015); findings should be grounded in the appropriate contexts and interpretations that acknowledge these realities should be favored.…”

“…Their papers, especially their discovery work on the genetics of educational attainment (Okbay et al, 2016;Rietveld et al, 2013), are all accompanied by carefully worded online "FAQs" which are meant to offer context and clarity for interpreting their findings. This practice has been framed as "the best example of prophylaxis against hyperbole" (Parens & Appelbaum, 2015). They give clear guidance against overly simplistic interpretations of their findings: "Did you find 'the gene' for cognitive performance?…”