Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Epigenetic Responsibility

  • Published:
Medicine Studies

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to argue for a position holding that epigenetic responsibility primarily should be a political and not an individual responsibility. Epigenetic is a rapidly growing research field studying regulations of gene expression that do not change the DNA sequence. Knowledge about these mechanisms is still uncertain in many respects, but main presumptions are that they are triggered by environmental factors and life style and, to a certain extent, heritable to subsequent generations, thereby reminding of aspects of Lamarckism. Epigenetic research advances give rise to intriguing challenges for responsibility relations between the society and the individual. Responsibility is commonly understood in a backwards-looking manner, identifying causally responsible actors to blame for a bad outcome. If only a backwards-looking responsibility model is applied, epigenetics might give rise to arduous responsibility ascriptions to individuals for their health and the health of their future descendants. This would put heavy responsibility burdens on actors constrained by unequal social and economic structures. In contrast, a forward-looking responsibility notion takes account of structural conditions and pay attention to who is best placed to do something about conditions contributing to bad outcomes. A forward-looking responsibility notion would partly free disadvantaged individuals from responsibility, and identify actors with power and capacity to do something about structural factors constraining genuine choice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The most explored mechanisms are DNA methylation and histone modification. DNA methylation refers to processes of redirections of methyl groups to a gene, making it inactive. Histone modification refers to modifications of the proteins that package DNA. Other mechanisms include regulation by noncoding RNAs, and mechanisms controlling the organisation of chromatin (Jirtle and Skinner 2007: 253).

  2. The evolutionist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744–1829) suggested that acquired characteristics were passed on to next generation (Richards 2006: 399).

  3. The term epigenetics (derived from Greek epi, meaning ‘upon’, and genetics) literally means ‘upon genetics’ (Zhang and Meaney 2010: 447) or ‘in addition to changes in genetic sequence’ (Weinhold 2006: 163).

  4. One such study of the Dutch famine during the ‘hunger winter’ 1944–1945 (Lumey et al. 2007) reported that offspring born during this time were smaller than average and that this effect could persist for two generations, but these findings appeared to be difficult to reproduce (Morgan and Whitelaw 2008: 395).

  5. For instance, different environmental toxins have been shown to affect epigenetic modifications being implicated in cancer and cardiovascular disease (Wrobel et al. 2009: 482); children born after in vitro fertilisation are more frequently seen with certain disorders (Kato et al. 2005: 624); rodent experiments have shown apparent stress reactions in the offspring deprived of maternal care in the form of pup licking long after the care giver was gone, a result pointing at possible long-term epigenetic effects (Szyf et al. 2007: 15).

  6. Other novelties with epigenetics compared to the old paradigm of genetics: epigenetics refers to functional and not structural changes in DNA; e. indicates a gradual and not a leap wise development of nature; e. might come to overcome the genetics–nature divide. E. may also explain self-organisation of the living being. (Vineis 2009)

  7. Although there is always the eternal question of the free will, here it will suffice to stipulate that certain factors are definitely out of control for the individual.

  8. Our genes are given to us by heritage, so we are normally not viewed responsible for what these genes make us become. In contrast, we sometimes refer to our genes as an excuse for bad performance (Lewitt and Manson 2007). However, both in not a very distant history with compulsory sterilisation of individuals with ‘defective genes’ (c.f. Hansen and King 2001), and in recent debates about gene tests in reproduction matters, individuals have been ascribed responsibility for how they act on their gene set-up (c.f. Hammond 2010).

  9. Different theories associate responsibility with control, or freedom to do otherwise; willing action or acting freely; or free or uncompelled action (Fischer 1982: 87). In this article control is the main guiding principle. Control here refers to ‘the power to determine whether or not’ something occurs (Kane 2002: 698).

  10. Responsibility theorists disagree about the truth of determinism and about determinism being consistent with responsibility or not, the so called free will problem. Compatibilism, on the one hand, is the position that determinism is compatible with responsibility, while incompatibilism, on the other hand, is the position that determinism is not compatible with responsibility. Incompatibilists either deny the truth of determinism, or the possibility of responsibility if determinism is true (Duus-Otterström 2007: 248–254).

  11. I do not, however, take a stand in the metaphysic question of the truth of determinism, but rather assume that people are able to make decisions for which they can be held responsible.

  12. The same logic applies for action and non-action. For the sake of argument I will talk about actions only.

  13. Although intuitively reasonable, this statement is in no way uncontroversial. There is a lively philosophical debate about e.g. the necessity of alternative possibilities for an actor to be able to act responsible or not (for a review, see Fischer 1999).

  14. Political representatives are responsible in a similar manner as professions. However, the assigning of responsibility to political representatives is circumscribed with the rules and procedures that come with (democratic) accountability, which in some respects is analogous to the relation in hierarchical organisations between superior and subordinate (c.f. Lewin 2007: 3).

  15. As the widespread illnesses of diabetes and cardiovascular disease have been associated with epigenetic effects (c.f. Jirtle and Skinner 2007: 253), it is likely that epigenetic factors involved in these diseases will be attractive targets for new drugs.

  16. In this part of the analysis I will make the assumption that trans-generational inheritance does exist.

References

  • Adam, Barbara, and Chris Groves. 2011. Futures tended: Care and future-oriented responsibility. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 31(1): 17–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, Stefan, and Jörg Niewöhner. 2006. Somatographic investigations across levels of complexity. BioSocieties 1: 219–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bracken, Adrian P., and Kristian Helin. 2009. Polycomb group proteins: Navigators of lineage pathways led astray in cancer. Nature Reviews Cancer 9(11): 773–785.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boddington, Paula. 2010. Relative responsibilities: Is there an obligation to discuss genomic research participation with family members? Public Health Genomics 13(7–8): 504–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, Allen. 2011. Beyond humanity? The ethics of biomedical enhancement. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butcher, Lee M., and Stephan Beck. 2008. Future impact of integrated high-throughput methylome analyses on human health and disease. Journal of Genetics and Genomics 35(7): 391–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlisle, Juliet E., Jessica T. Feezell, Kristy E.H. Michaud, Eric R.A.N. Smith, and Leeanna Smith. 2010. The public’s trust in scientific claims regarding offshore oil drilling. Public Understanding of Science 19(5): 514–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • d’Agincourt-Canning, Lori. 2006. Genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: Responsibility and choice. Qualitative Health Research 16(1): 97–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietrich, Frank. 2002. Causal responsibility and rationing in medicine. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 5(1): 113–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downie, R.S. 1969. Collective responsibility. In Collective responsibility: Five decades of debate in theoretical and applied ethics, eds. Larry May & Stacey Hoffman, 47–51. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

  • Duus-Otterström, Göran. 2007. Punishment and personal responsibility. Göteborg: Department of Political Science, Göteborg University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etchegary, Holly, and Ken Fowler. 2008. ‘They had the right to know’: Genetic risk and perceptions of responsibility. Psychology and Health 23(6): 707–727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feinberg, Joel. 1970. Collective responsibility. In Collective responsibility: Five decades of debate in theoretical and applied ethics, ed. Larry May and Stacey Hoffman, 53–76. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

  • Fischer, John Martin. 1982. Responsibility and control. The Journal of Philosophy 79(1): 24–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, John Martin. 1999. Recent work on moral responsibility. Ethics 110(1): 93–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, John Martin. 2006. My Way: Essays on moral responsibility. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, John Martin, and Mark Ravizza. 1998. Responsibility and control: A theory of moral responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • FitzPatrick, William J. 2008. Moral responsibility and normative ignorance: Answering a new skeptical challenge. Ethics 118(4): 589–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraga, Mario F., Esteban Ballestar, Maria F. Paz, Santiago Ropero, Fernando Setien, Maria L. Ballestar, Damia Heine-Suñer, Juan C. Cigudosa, Miguel Urioste, Javier Benitez, Manuel Boix-Chornet, Abel Sanchez-Aguilera, Charlotte Ling, Emma Carlsson, Pernille Poulsen, Allan Vaag, Zarko Stephan, Tim D. Spector, Wu Yue-Zhong, Christoph Plass, Manel Esteller, and Stanley M. Gartler. 2005. Epigenetic differences arise during the lifetime of monozygotic twins. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) 102(30): 10604–10609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerstenberg, Tobias, and David A. Lagnado. 2010. Spreading the blame: The allocation of responsibility amongst multiple agents. Cognition 115(1): 166–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gesche, Astrid H. 2009. Taking a first step: Epigenetic health and responsibility. In Epigenetics and human health: Linking hereditary, environmental and nutritional aspects, eds. Alexander G. Haslberger and Sabine Gressler, 281–285. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co.

  • Gilbert, Margaret. 1993. Agreements, coercion, and obligation. Ethics 103(4): 669–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, Margaret. 2006. Who is to blame? Collective moral responsibility and its implications for group members. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 30(1): 94–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gluckman, Peter D., Mark A. Hansson, and Alan S. Beedle. 2007. Early life events and their consequences for later disease: A life history and evolutionary perspective. American Journal of Human Biology 19(1): 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, Jessica. 2010. Genetic engineering to avoid genetic neglect: From chance to responsibility. Bioethics 24(4): 160–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, Randall, and Desmond King. 2001. Eugenic ideas, political interests, and policy variance: Immigration and sterilization policy in britain and the US. World Politics 53(2): 237–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedlund, Maria. 2007. Demokratiska genvägar: Expertinflytande i den svenska lagstiftningsprocessen om medicinsk genteknik. Lund: Lund Political Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedlund, Maria. 2010. Democratic expert influence through bioethical advisory commissions? The case of PGD legislation in Sweden. In Quality issues in clinical genetic servces, eds. Ulf Kristoffersson, J. J. Cassiman and Jörg Schmidtke. New York: Springer.

  • Held, Virginia. 1970. Can a random collection of individuals Be morally responsible? In Collective responsibility: Five decades of debate in theoretical and applied ethics, ed. Larry May and Stacey Hoffman, 89–100. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

  • Hodges, John. 2010. Going beyond the limits: Genetic modification of livestock and dissolution of ancient boundaries. Livestock Science 130(1–3): 3–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jablonka, Eva, and Gal Raz. 2009. Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance: Prevalence, mechanisms, and implications for the study of heredity and evolution. The Quarterly Review of Biology 84(2): 131–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jirtle, Randy L., and Michael K. Skinner. 2007. Environmental epigenomics and disease susceptibility. Nature Reviews: Genetics 8(4): 253–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaati, Gunnar. 2009. Case studies on epigenetic inheritance. In Epigenetics and human health: Linking hereditary, environmental and nutritional aspects, ed. Alexander G. Haslberger, and Sabine Gressler, 63–86. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kane, Robert. 2002. Responsibility, reactive attitudes and free will: Reflections on Wallace’s theory. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 64(3): 693–698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kato, T., K. Iwamoto, C. Kakiuchi, G. Turatomi, and Y. Okasaki. 2005. Genetic or epigenetic difference casing discordance between monozygotic twins as a clue to molecular basis of mental disorders. Molecular Psychiatry 10: 622–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knoppers, Bartha Maria, and Ruth Chadwick. 2005. Human genetic research: Emerging trends in ethics. Nature Reviews Genetics 6(1): 75–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lanteri, Alessandro. 2009. Judgements of intentionality and moral worth: Experimental challenges to hindriks. The Philosophical Quarterly 59(237): 713–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, Leif. 2007. Democratic accountability: Why choice in politics is both possible and necessary. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewitt, Mairi, and Neil Manson. 2007. My genes made me do it? The implications of behavioural genetics for responsibility and blame. Health Care Analysis 15(1): 33–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lumey, L.H., Aryeh D. Stein, Henry S. Kahn, Karin M. Van der Pal-de Bruin, G.J. Blauw, Patricia A. Zybert, and Ezra E. Susser. 2007. Cohort profile: The Dutch hunger winter families study. International Journal of Epidemiology 36(6): 1196–1204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundquist, Lennart. 1987. Implementation steering: An actor structure approach. Bromley: Chartwell-Bratt.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, Larry, and Stacey Hoffman (eds.). 1991. Collective responsibility: Five decades of debate in theoretical and applied ethics. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGary, Howard. 1986. Morality and collective liability. In Collective Responsibility: Five Decades of Debate in Theoretical and Applied Ethics, eds. Larry May and Stacey Hoffman, 53–76. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

  • Mill, J. S. 1859 [2002]. On liberty. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.

  • Miller, David. 2001. Distributing responsibilities. The Journal of Political Philosophy 9(4): 453–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, Daniel K., and Emma Whitelaw. 2008. The case for transgenerational epigenetic inheritance in humans. Mammalian Genome 19(6): 394–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muyskens, James L. 1982. Collective responsibility of the nursing profession. In Collective responsibility: Five decades of debate in theoretical and applied ethics, eds. Larry May and Stacey Hoffman. 67–178. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

  • Mäkelä, Pekka. 2007. Collective agents and moral responsibility. Journal of Social Philosophy 38(3): 456–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nathanson, Constance, and Kim Hopper. 2010. The marmot review—Social revolution by stealth. Social Science and Medicine 71(7): 1237–1239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholas, Barbara. 2001. Exploring a moral landscape: Genetic science and ethics. Hypatia 16(1): 45–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nihlén Fahlquist, Jessica. 2009. Moral responsibility for environmental problems—Individual or institutional? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 22(2): 109–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Page, Edward A. 2008. Distributing the burdens of climate change. Environmental Politics 17(4): 556–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pembrey, Marcus E, Lars Olov Bygren, Gunnar Kaati, Sören Edvinsson, Kate Northstone, Mikael Sjöström, Jean Golding, and The ALSPAC Study Team. 2006. Sex-specific, male-line transgenerational responses in humans. European Journal of Human Genetics 14(2): 159–166.

  • Ptak, Carolyn, and Arturas Petronis. 2008. Epigenetics and complex disease: From etiology to new therapeutics. Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology 48(1): 257–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richards, Eric J. 2006. Inherited epigenetic variation—Revisiting soft inheritance. Nature Reviews Genetics 7(5): 395–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothstein, Mark A., Yu. Cai, and Gary E. Merchant. 2009. Ethical implications of epigenetics research. Nature Reviews Genetics 10(4): 224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, Michael K., Mohan Manikkam, and Carlos Guerrero-Bosagna. 2010. Epigenetic transgenerational actions of environmental factors in disease etiology. Trends in Endocrionology & Metabolism 21(4): 214–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sloboda, D.M., G.J. Howie, and M.H. Vickers. 2007. Maternal high fat nutrition either pre-conceptional and/or throughout pregnancy and lactation leads to early-onset puberty in offspring and is further exacerbated by a post-weaning high fat diet. Early Human Development 83: S54–S55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sneddon, Andrew. 2005. Moral responsibility: The difference of strawson, and the difference It should make. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 8(3): 239–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soini, Sirpa (ed.). 2011. Public health—Ethical issues. Gothenburg: Nordic Council of Ministers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swedish Priority Centre. 2007. Vårdens alltför svåra val? Linköping: Prioriterings Centrum.

  • Szyf, Moshe. 2007. The dynamic epigenome and its implications in toxicology. Toxicological Sciences 100(1): 7–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szyf, Moshe. 2009. The early life environment and the epigenome. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 1790(9): 878–885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szyf, Moshe, Ian Weaver, and Michael Meaney. 2007. Maternal care, the epigenome and phenotypic differences in behavior. Reproductive Toxicology 24(1): 9–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Talbert, Matthew. 2008. Blame and responsiveness to moral reasons: Are psychopaths blameworthy? Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 89(4): 516–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, Dennis F. 1987. Political ethics and public office. Cambridge, MA, and London, England: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trouiller, Patrice, Els Torreele, Piero Olliaro, Nick White, Susan Foster, Dyann Wirth, and Bernard Pécoul. 2002. Drugs for neglected diseases: A failure of the market and a public health failure? Tropical Medicine & International Health 6(11): 945–951.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vieth, Andreas. 2010. Conceptual and ethical problems in the epistemology of genetic information. New Genetics and Society 29(1): 103–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Tie-Yuan, and Michael J. Meaney. 2010. Epigenetics and the environmental regulation of the genome and its function. Annual Review of Psychology 61(1): 439–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vineis, Paolo. 2009. The research program in epigenetics: The birth of a new paradigm. In Epigenetics and human health, ed. Alexander G. Haslberger, and Sabine Gressler. Weinham: Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinhold, Bob. 2006. Epigenetics: The science of change. Environmental Health Perspectives 114(3): 160–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead, Margaret, and Jennie Popay. 2010. Swimming upstream? Taking action on the social determinants. Social Science and Medicine 71(7): 1234–1236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wrobel, Katarzyna, Kazimierz Wrobel, and Joseph A. Caruso. 2009. Epigenetics: An important challenge for ICP-MS in metallomics studies. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry 393(2): 481–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, Iris Marion. 2006. Responsibility and global justice: A social connection model. Social Philosophy and Policy 23(1): 102–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, Iris Marion. 2011. Responsibility for justice. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I would like to acknowledge the helpful comments received on earlier versions of this article from Ulf Mörkenstam, Magdalena Bexell, Göran Duus-Otterström, Annika Björkdahl, Dalia Mukhtar-Landgren, Johannes Lindvall, and the anonymous reviewers of this journal.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, Lund University, Box 52, 221 00, Lund, Sweden

    Maria Hedlund

Authors
  1. Maria Hedlund
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maria Hedlund.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hedlund, M. Epigenetic Responsibility. Medicine Studies 3, 171–183 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12376-011-0072-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12376-011-0072-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation