Understanding “What Could Be”: A Call for ‘Experimental Behavioral Genetics’
Behavioral genetic (BG) research has yielded many important discoveries about the origins of human behavior, but offers little insight into how we might improve outcomes. We posit that this gap in our knowledge base stems in part from the epidemiologic nature of BG research questions. Namely, BG studies focus on understanding etiology as it currently exists, rather than etiology in environments that could exist but do not as of yet (e.g., etiology following an intervention). Put another way, they focus exclusively on the etiology of “what is” rather than “what could be”. The current paper discusses various aspects of this field-wide methodological reality, and offers a way to overcome it by demonstrating how behavioral geneticists can incorporate an experimental approach into their work. We outline an ongoing study that embeds a randomized intervention within a twin design, connecting “what is” and “what could be” for the first time. We then lay out a more general framework for a new field—experimental BGs—which has the potential to advance both scientific inquiry and related philosophical discussions.
KeywordsG×E Randomized intervention Twin study
The funding for this research was provided by the Templeton Foundation through the Genetics of Human Agency Initiative.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
S. Alexandra Burt, Kathryn S. Plaisance, David Z. Hambrick declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Human and animal rights
The described study has been approved by the Michigan State University IRB.
All participants give informed consent (informed consent is obtained by one parent since the twins are younger than 18 years old).
- Downes SM (2017) Heritability. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2017 Edition). In: Zalta EN (ed). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/heredity/
- Dweck CS (2006) Mindset: the new psychology of success. New York, Random HouseGoogle Scholar
- Kaplan JM (2000) The limits and lies of human genetic research: dangers for social policy. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Lewontin RC (1974) The analysis of variance and the analysis of causes. Am J Hum Genet 26(3):400–411Google Scholar
- Plomin R (1990) Nature and nurture: an introduction to human behavioral genetics. Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing Co, BelmontGoogle Scholar
- Plomin R, DeFries JC, Knopik VS, Neiderhiser JM (2013) Behavioral genetics, 6th edn. Worth Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Turkheimer E (2004) Spinach and ice cream: why social science is so difficult. In: DiLalla LF (ed) Behavior genetics principles: perspectives in development, personality, and psychopathology. American Psychological Association, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
- Woodward J (2016) Causation and manipulability. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition). In: Zalta EN (ed). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/causation-mani/