Biology & Philosophy

, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp 25–49 | Cite as

Heritability and causal reasoning

Article

Abstract

Gene–environment (G–E) covariance is the phenomenon whereby genetic differences bias variation in developmental environment, and is particularly problematic for assigning genetic and environmental causation in a heritability analysis. The interpretation of these cases has differed amongst biologists and philosophers, leading some to reject the utility of heritability estimates altogether. This paper examines the factors that influence causal reasoning when G–E covariance is present, leading to interpretive disagreement between scholars. It argues that the causal intuitions elicited are influenced by concepts of agency and blame-worthiness, and are intimately tied with the conceptual understanding of the phenotype under investigation. By considering a phenotype-specific approach, I provide an account as to why causal ascriptions can differ depending on the interpreter. Phenotypes like intelligence, which have been the primary focus of this debate, are more likely to spark disagreement for the interpretation of G–E covariance cases because the concept and ideas about its ‘normal development’ relatively ill-defined and are a subject of debate. I contend that philosophical disagreement about causal attributions in G–E covariance cases are in essence disagreements regarding how a phenotype should be defined and understood. This moves the debate from one of an ontological flavour concerning objective causal claims, to one concerning the conceptual, normative and semantic dependencies.

Keywords

Heritability Causation Genes Environment Phenotype 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Karola Stotz, Paul Griffiths, Pierrick Bourrat, Chris Lean, and Richard Menary for helpful discussion and comments on earlier drafts of this work.

References

  1. Alicke MD (1992) Culpable causation. J Pers Soc Psychol 63:368–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ambert AM (1997) Parents, children, and adolescents: interactive relationships and development in context. Haworth Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Baessler A, Hasinoff MJ, Fischer M et al (2005) Genetic linkage and association of the growth hormone secretagogue receptor (ghrelin receptor) gene in human obesity. Diabetes 54(1):259–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Block N (1995) How heritability misleads about race. Cognition 56(2):99–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Block N, Dworkin G (1976) IQ, heritability and inequality. In: Block N, Dworkin G (eds) The IQ controversy: critical readings. Pantheon, New York, pp 410–540Google Scholar
  6. Brauer G, Chopra VP (1980) Estimating the heritability of hair colour and eye colour. J Hum Evol 9(8):625–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burger KS, Berner LA (2014) A functional neuroimaging review of obesity, appetitive hormones and ingestive behavior. Physiol Behav. doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2014.04.025 Google Scholar
  8. Dawkins R (1982) The extended phenotype: the long reach of the gene. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Devlin B, Daniels M, Roeder K (1997) The heritability of IQ. Nature 388:468–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eaves LJ, Last K, Martin NG, Jinks JL (1977) A progressive approach to non-additivity and genotype–environmental covariance in the analysis of human differences. Brit J Math Stat Psychol 30(1):1–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Falconer DS, Mackay TFC (1996) Introduction to quantitative genetics, 4th edn. Longman, HarlowGoogle Scholar
  12. Fisher RA (1918) The correlation between relatives on the supposition of mendelian inheritance. Philos Trans R Soc Edinb 52:399–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fuller JL (1979) Comment on Wahlsten. In: Royce JR, Moss LP (eds) Theoretical advances in behavioural genetics, Sijthoff & Noordhof, Alphen aan den RijnGoogle Scholar
  14. Gibbard A (2001) Genetic plans, genetic differences, and violence: some chief possibilities. In: Wasserman D, Wachbroit R (eds) Genetics and criminal behaviour. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 169–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hart HLA, Honore AM (1985) Causation in the law, 2nd edn. Clarendon Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Herrnstein RJ, Murray C (1994) The bell curve: intelligence and class structure in American life. The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Hur YM, McGue M, Iacono WG (1996) Genetic and shared environmental influences on leisure-time interests in male adolescents. Pers Individ Differ 21(5):791–801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jencks CS (1980) Heredity, environment and social policy reconsidered. Am Sociol Rev 45:723–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jencks CS, Smith M, Acland H et al (1972) Inequality: a reassessment of the effect of family and schooling in America. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Jensen AR (1969) How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement? Harvard Edu Rev 39:1–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jinks JL, Fulker DW (1970) Comparison of the biometrical genetical, MAVA, and classical approaches to the analysis of human behavior. Psychol Bull 73:311–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kitcher P (2001) Battling the undead: how (and how not) to resist genetic determinism. In: Singh RS, Krimbas K, Paul DB, Beatty J (eds) Thinking about evolution: historical, philosophical, and political perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 396–414Google Scholar
  23. Knobe J (2006) Folk psychology, folk morality. Dissertation, Princeton UniversityGoogle Scholar
  24. Knobe J, Fraser B (2007) Causal judgement and moral judgment: two experiments. In: Sinnott-Armstrong W (ed) Moral psychology volume 2: the evolution of morality. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. Loehlin JC, DeFries JD (1987) Genotype-environment correlation and IQ. Behav Genet 17:263–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lykken DT, Bouchard TJ, McGue M, Tellegen A (1993) Heritability of interests: a twin study. J Appl Psychol 78(4):649–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lynch KE, Bourrat P Interpreting heritability causally. Philos Sci (accepted)Google Scholar
  28. Maestripieri D, Mateo JM (2009) Maternal effects in mammals. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nicolaou N, Shane S (2009) Can genetic factors influence the likelihood of engaging in entrepreneurial activity? J Bus Venturing 42(1):1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nicolaou N, Shane S, Cherkas L, Hunkin J, Spector TD (2008) Is the tendency to engage in entrepreneurship genetic? Manag Sci 54(1):167–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. O’Malley MA, Stotz K (2011) Intervention, integration and translation in obesity research: genetic, developmental and metaorganismal approaches. Philos Ethics Humanit Med 6(2):1–14Google Scholar
  32. O’Rahilly S, Farooqi IS (2008) Human obesity: a heritable neurobehavioral disorder that is highly sensitive to environmental conditions. Diabetes 57(11):2905–2910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pearl J (2001) Direct and indirect effects. In: Proceedings of the seventeenth conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., pp 411–420Google Scholar
  34. Plomin R, Spinath FM (2004) Intelligence: genetics, genes, and genomics. J Pers Soc Psychol 86(1):112–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Plomin R, DeFries JC, Loehlin JC (1977) Genotype–environment interaction and correlation in the analysis of human behavior. Psychol Bull 84(2):309–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Plomin R, Loehlin JC, DeFries JC (1985) Genetic and environmental components of environmental influences. Dev Psychol 21(3):391–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Plomin R, DeFries JC, McClearn GE, McGuffin P (2008) Behavioral genetics, 5th edn. Worth Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. Roberts RC (1967) Some concepts and methods in quantitative genetics. In: Hirsch J (ed) Behavior genetics analysis. McGraw Hill, New York, pp 214–257Google Scholar
  39. Roberts RE, Kaplan GA, Shema SJ, Strawbridge WJ (2000) Are the obese at greater risk for depression? Am J Epidemiol 152:163–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rutter M, Silberg J (2002) Environment interplay in relation to emotional and behavioral disturbance. Annu Rev Psychol 53(1):463–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sesardic N (2003) Heritability and indirect causation. Philos Sci 70(5):1002–1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sesardic N (2005) Making sense of heritability. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sober E (2001) Separating nature and nurture. In: Wasserman D, Wachbroit R (eds) Genetics and criminal behavior. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 47–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stunkard AJ, Foch TT, Hrubec Z (1986) A twin study of human obesity. JAMA 256(1):51–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stunkard AJ, Faith MS, Allison KC (2003) Depression and obesity. Biol Psychiatry 54(3):330–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tabery J (2014) Beyond versus: the struggle to understand the interaction of nature and nurture. MIT Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wang X, Chen D, Niu T et al (2000) Genetic susceptibility to benzene and shortened gestation: evidence of gene–environment interaction. Am J Epidemiol 152(8):693–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Woodward J (2003) Making things happen: a theory of causal explanation. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesMacquarie UniversityNorth RydeAustralia

Personalised recommendations