Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

“The elephant in the room”: social responsibility in the production of sociogenomics research

  • Original Article
  • Published:
BioSocieties Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This article has been updated

Abstract

Sociogenomics examines the extent to which genetic differences between individuals relate to differences in social and economic behaviors and outcomes. The field evokes mixed reactions. For some, sociogenomics runs the risk of normalizing eugenic attitudes and legitimizing social inequalities. For others, sociogenomics brings the promise of more robust and nuanced understandings of human behavior. Regardless, a history of misuse and misapplication of genetics raises important questions about researchers’ social responsibilities. This paper draws on semi-structured interviews with sociogenomics researchers who investigate intelligence and educational attainment. It does so to understand how researcher’s motivations for engaging in a historically burdened field connect to their views on social responsibility and the challenges that come with it. In interviews, researchers highlighted the trade-off between engaging in socially contested research and the potential benefits their work poses to the social sciences and clinical research. They also highlighted the dilemmas of engaging with the public, including the existence of multiple publics. Finally, researchers elucidated uncertainties over what social responsibility is in practice and whether protecting against the misuse and misinterpretation of their research is wholly possible. This paper concludes by offering ways to address some of the challenges of social responsibility in the production of knowledge.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 15 July 2021

    On page 15 the spelling of the word “Declarations" has been corrected

References

  • Adam, D. 2019. The promise and peril of the new science of social genomics. Nature 574: 618–620. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03171-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anzul, M., M. Downing, M. Ely, and A. Vinz. 1997. On writing qualitative research. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balmer, A.S., J. Calvert, C. Marris, S. Molyneux-Hodgson, E. Frow, M. Kearnes, K. Bulpin, P. Schyfter, A. Mackenzie, and P. Martin. 2016. Five rules of thumb for post-ELSI interdisciplinary collaborations. Journal of Responsible Innovation 3: 73–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2016.1177867.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beadie, N., J. Williamson-Lott, M. Bowman, T. Frizell, G. Guzman, J. Hyun, J. Johnson, K. Nicholas, L. Phillips, R. Wellington, and L. Yoshida. 2017. Gateways to the west, Part II: Education and the making of race, place, and culture in the west. History of Education Quarterly 57: 94–126. https://doi.org/10.1017/heq.2016.5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beckwith, J., and F. Huang. 2005. Should we make a fuss? A case for social responsibility in science. Nature Biotechnology 23: 1479–1480. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1205-1479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin, D.J., D. Cesarini, C.F. Chabris, E.L. Glaeser, D.I. Laibson, G.S.-R.S. Age, V. Guðnason, T.B. Harris, L.J. Launer, S. Purcell, A.V. Smith, S.T. Registry, M. Johannesson, P.K.E. Magnusson, F.H. Study, J.P. Beauchamp, N.A. Christakis, W.L. Study, C.S. Atwood, B. Hebert, J. Freese, R.M. Hauser, T.S. Hauser, S.L.S. Study, A. Grankvist, C.M. Hultman, and P. Lichtenstein. 2012. The promises and pitfalls of genoeconomics. Annual Review of Economics 4: 627–662. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-080511-110939.

  • Bliss, C. 2012. Race decoded: The genomic fight for social justice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bliss, C. 2018. Social by nature: The promise and peril of sociogenomics. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3: 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breinholt, A., and D. Conley. 2020. Child-driven parenting: Differential early childhood investment by offspring genotype (No. w28217). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w28217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brigham, C.C. 1922. A study of American intelligence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buck v. Bell, 1927.

  • Bush, W.S., and J.H. Moore. 2012. Chapter 11: Genome-wide association studies. PLoS Computing Biology. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callier, S.L., and V.L. Bonham. 2015. Taking a stand: The genetics community’s responsibility for intelligence research. Hastings Center Report 45: S54–S58. https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chabris, C.F., J.J. Lee, D. Cesarini, D.J. Benjamin, and D.I. Laibson. 2015. The fourth law of behavior genetics. Current Directions in Psychological Science 24: 304–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charles, A.S., B. Falk, N. Turner, T.D. Pereira, D. Tward, B.D. Pedigo, J. Chung, R. Burns, S.S. Ghosh, J.M. Kebschull, W. Silversmith, and J.T. Vogelstein. 2020. Toward community-driven big open brain science: Open big data and tools for structure, function, and genetics. Annual Review of Neuroscience 43: 441–464. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-neuro-100119-110036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, V., and V. Braun. 2014. Thematic analysis. In Encyclopedia of critical psychology, 1947–1952. New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Comfort, N. 2018. Sociogenomics is opening a new door to eugenics. MIT Technology Review.

  • Conley, D., and J. Fletcher. 2017. The Genome Factor. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • de Zeeuw, E.L., van Beijsterveldt, C.E.M., Glasner, T.J., Bartels, M., Ehli, E.A., Davies, G.E., Hudziak, J.J., Social Science Genetic Association Consortium, Rietveld, C.A., Groen-Blokhuis, M.M., Hottenga, J.J., de Geus, E.J.C., Boomsma, D.I. 2014. Polygenic scores associated with educational attainment in adults predict educational achievement and ADHD symptoms in children. American Journal of Medical Genetics. Part b, Neuropsychiatric Genetics 165: 510–520. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.b.32254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duster, T. 2005. Race and Reification in Science. Science 307: 1050–1051. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1110303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evrie, J.H.V. 1868. Negroes and Negro Slavery: The first an inferior race: The latter its normal condition. Van Evrie, Horton, New York.

  • Fanelli, D. 2018. Opinion: Is science really facing a reproducibility crisis, and do we need it to? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115: 2628–2631. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708272114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foley, R.W., M.J. Bernstein, and A. Wiek. 2016. Towards an alignment of activities, aspirations and stakeholders for responsible innovation. Journal of Responsible Innovation 3: 209–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2016.1257380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fullwiley, D. 2008. The molecularization of race and institutions of difference: Pharmacy and public science after the genome. In Revisiting race in a genomic age (studies in medical anthropology), ed. B.A. Koenig, S.S. Lee, and S. Richardson, 149–171. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galletta, A. 2013. Mastering the semi-structured interview and beyond: From research design to analysis and publication. NYU Press.

  • Gillborn, D. 2016. Softly, softly: Genetics, intelligence and the hidden racism of the new geneism. Journal of Educational Policy. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2016.1139189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, S. 2019. Genetic study aims to help poor, bright children succeed. Sunday Times.

  • Harden, K.P. 2018. Opinion | Why progressives should embrace the genetics of education. The New York Times.

  • Harden, K.P. 2021. “Reports of my death were greatly exaggerated”: Behavior genetics in the postgenomic era. Annual Review of Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-052220-103822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harden, K.P., and P.D. Koellinger. 2020. Using genetics for social science. Nature Human Behaviour. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0862-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heine, S.J., I. Dar-Nimrod, B.Y. Cheung, and T. Proulx. 2017. Essentially biased: Why people are fatalistic about genes. In Advances in experimental social psychology, ed. J.M. Olson, 137–192. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrnstein, R.J., and C.A. Murray. 1996. The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, W.D., N.M. Davies, S.J. Ritchie, N.G. Skene, J. Bryois, S. Bell, E. Di Angelantonio, D.J. Roberts, S. Xueyi, G. Davies, D.C.M. Liewald, D.J. Porteous, C. Hayward, A.S. Butterworth, A.M. McIntosh, C.R. Gale, and I.J. Deary. 2019. Genome-wide analysis identifies molecular systems and 149 genetic loci associated with income. Nature Communications 10: 5741. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-13585-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holman, L., D. Stuart-Fox, and C.E. Hauser. 2018. The gender gap in science: How long until women are equally represented? PLoS Biology 16: e2004956. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2004956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, A.R. 1991. Spearman’s “g” and the problem of educational equality. Oxford Review of Education 17: 169–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, Daniel. 2003. Experiences of collaborative research. American Psychologist 58 (9): 723–730. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.9.723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kallio, H., A.-M. Pietilä, M. Johnson, and M. Kangasniemi. 2016. Systematic methodological review: Developing a framework for a qualitative semi-structured interview guide. Journal of Advanced Nursing 72: 2954–2965. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J.J., R. Wedow, A. Okbay, E. Kong, O. Maghzian, M. Zacher, T.A. Nguyen-Viet, P. Bowers, J. Sidorenko, R.K. Linnér, M.A. Fontana, T. Kundu, C. Lee, H. Li, R. Li, R. Royer, P.N. Timshel, R.K. Walters, E.A. Willoughby, L. Yengo, M. Alver, Y. Bao, D.W. Clark, F.R. Day, N.A. Furlotte, P.K. Joshi, K.E. Kemper, A. Kleinman, C. Langenberg, R. Mägi, J.W. Trampush, S.S. Verma, Y. Wu, M. Lam, J.H. Zhao, Z. Zheng, J.D. Boardman, H. Campbell, J. Freese, K.M. Harris, C. Hayward, P. Herd, M. Kumari, T. Lencz, J. Luan, A.K. Malhotra, A. Metspalu, L. Milani, K.K. Ong, J.R.B. Perry, D.J. Porteous, M.D. Ritchie, M.C. Smart, B.H. Smith, J.Y. Tung, N.J. Wareham, J.F. Wilson, J.P. Beauchamp, D.C. Conley, T. Esko, S.F. Lehrer, P.K.E. Magnusson, S. Oskarsson, T.H. Pers, M.R. Robinson, K. Thom, C. Watson, C.F. Chabris, M.N. Meyer, D.I. Laibson, J. Yang, M. Johannesson, P.D. Koellinger, P. Turley, P.M. Visscher, D.J. Benjamin, and D. Cesarini. 2018. Gene discovery and polygenic prediction from a genome-wide association study of educational attainment in 1.1 million individuals. Nature Genetics 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-018-0147-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malanchini, M., K. Rimfeld, A.G. Allegrini, S.J. Ritchie, and R. Plomin. 2020. Cognitive ability and education: How behavioural genetic research has advanced our knowledge and understanding of their association. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 111: 229–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.01.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marigorta, U.M., J.A. Rodríguez, G. Gibson, and A. Navarro. 2018. Replicability and prediction: Lessons and challenges from GWAS. Trends in Genetics 34: 504–517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2018.03.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martschenko, D. 2020. The train has left the station: The arrival of the biosocial sciences in education. Research in Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/0034523720914636.

  • Martschenko, D.O. 2019. The New Borderland: A mixed-methods examination of teacher perceptions of intelligence, race, and socioeconomic status in relation to behavior genetics (Thesis). University of Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.40448.

  • Martschenko, D., S. Trejo, and Domingue, B. W. 2019. Genetics and education: Recent developments in the context of an ugly history and an uncertain future. AERA Open.

  • Mills, Melinda C., Nicola Barban, and Felix C. Tropf. 2018. The sociogenomics of polygenic scores of reproductive behavior and their relationship to other fertility traits. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences 4 (4): 122–136. https://doi.org/10.7758/RSF.2018.4.4.07.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mills, Melinda C., and Charles Rahal. (2019). A scientometric review of genome-wide association studies. Communications Biology 2 (1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-018-0261-x

  • Mills, M.C., and F.C. Tropf. 2020. Sociology, genetics, and the coming of age of sociogenomics. Annual Review of Sociology 46: null. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Human Genome Research Intitute. n.d. Centers of Excellence in ELSI Research [WWW Document]. Genome.gov. https://www.genome.gov/Funded-Programs-Projects/ELSI-Research-Program/Centers-of-Excellence. Accessed 28 Dec 2020.

  • Neumann, A., I.M. Nolte, I. Pappa, T.S. Ahluwalia, E. Pettersson, A. Rodriguez, A. Whitehouse, C.E.M. van, Beijsterveldt, B. Benyamin, A.R. Hammerschlag, Q. Helmer, V. Karhunen, E. Krapohl, Y. Lu, P.J. van der, Most, T. Palviainen, B.S. Pourcain, I. Seppälä, A. Suarez, N. Vilor-Tejedor, C.M.T. Tiesler, C. Wang, A. Wills, A. Zhou, E. Behavior, C. Group, S. Alemany, H. Bisgaard, K. Bønnelykke, G.E. Davies, C. Hakulinen, A.K. Henders, E. Hyppönen, J. Stokholm, M. Bartels, J.-J. Hottenga, J. Heinrich, J. Hewitt, L. Keltikangas-Järvinen, T. Korhonen, J. Kaprio, J. Lahti, M. Lahti-Pulkkinen, T. Lehtimäki, C.M. Middeldorp, J.M. Najman, C. Pennell, C. Power, A.J. Oldehinkel, R. Plomin, K. Räikkönen, O.T. Raitakari, K. Rimfeld, L. Sass, H. Snieder, M. Standl, J. Sunyer, G.M. Williams, M.J. Bakermans-Kranenburg, D.I. Boomsma, M.H. van, IJzendoorn, C.A. Hartman, and H. Tiemeier. 2020. A genome-wide association study of total child psychiatric problems scores. medRxiv 2020.06.04.20121061. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.04.20121061.

  • Panofsky, A. 2018. Rethinking scientific authority: Behavior genetics and race controversies. American Journal of Cultural Sociology 6: 322–358. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41290-017-0032-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parens, E. 2020. Social genomics can combat inequality or be used to justify it. Aeon.

  • Parens, E., A.R. Chapman, and N. Press. 2006. Wrestling with behavioral genetics: Science, ethics, and public conversation. Baltimore: JHU Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne, G., and M. Williams. 2005. Generalization in qualitative research. Sociology 39: 295–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038505050540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polderman, T.J.C., B. Benyamin, C.A. de Leeuw, P.F. Sullivan, A. van Bochoven, P.M. Visscher, and D. Posthuma. 2015. Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies. Nature Genetics 47: 702–709. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.3285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reardon, S.F. 2016. School segregation and racial academic achievement gaps. RSF Russell sage found. Journal Social Science 2: 34–57. https://doi.org/10.7758/RSF.2016.2.5.03.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, D.B., and K.C. Elliott. 2016. The ethical challenges of socially responsible science. Accountability in Research 23: 31–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2014.1002608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rimfeld, K., E. Krapohl, M. Trzaskowski, J.R.I. Coleman, S. Selzam, P.S. Dale, T. Esko, A. Metspalu, and R. Plomin. 2018. Genetic influence on social outcomes during and after the Soviet era in Estonia. Nature Human Behaviour 2: 269. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0332-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritter, M.L., W. Guo, J.F. Samuels, Y. Wang, P.S. Nestadt, J. Krasnow, B.D. Greenberg, A.J. Fyer, J.T. McCracken, D.A. Geller, D.L. Murphy, J.A. Knowles, M.A. Grados, M.A. Riddle, S.A. Rasmussen, N.C. McLaughlin, E.L. Nurmi, K.D. Askland, B. Cullen, J. Piacentini, D.L. Pauls, J. Bienvenu, E. Stewart, F.S. Goes, B. Maher, A.E. Pulver, M. Mattheisen, J. Qian, G. Nestadt, and Y.Y. Shugart. 2017. Genome wide association study (GWAS) between attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD). Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnmol.2017.00083.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, D. 2015. Can research on the genetics of intelligence be “socially neutral”? Hastings Center Report 45: S50–S53. https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, D.E., and O. Rollins. 2020. Why sociology matters to race and biosocial science. Annual Review of Sociology 46: 195–214. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, G.E. 1999. Integrative animal behaviour and sociogenomics. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 14: 202–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(98)01536-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, G.E., C.M. Grozinger, and C.W. Whitfield. 2005. Sociogenomics: Social life in molecular terms. Nature Reviews Genetics 6: 257–270. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg1575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romero, F. 2019. Philosophy of science and the replicability crisis. Philosophy Compass 14: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savage, J.E., P.R. Jansen, S. Stringer, K. Watanabe, J. Bryois, C.A. de Leeuw, M. Nagel, S. Awasthi, P.B. Barr, J.R.I. Coleman, K.L. Grasby, A.R. Hammerschlag, J.A. Kaminski, R. Karlsson, E. Krapohl, M. Lam, M. Nygaard, C.A. Reynolds, J.W. Trampush, H. Young, D. Zabaneh, S. Hägg, N.K. Hansell, I.K. Karlsson, S. Linnarsson, G.W. Montgomery, A.B. Muñoz-Manchado, E.B. Quinlan, G. Schumann, N.G. Skene, B.T. Webb, T. White, D.E. Arking, D. Avramopoulos, R.M. Bilder, P. Bitsios, K.E. Burdick, T.D. Cannon, O. Chiba-Falek, A. Christoforou, E.T. Cirulli, E. Congdon, A. Corvin, G. Davies, I.J. Deary, P. DeRosse, D. Dickinson, S. Djurovic, G. Donohoe, E.D. Conley, J.G. Eriksson, T. Espeseth, N.A. Freimer, S. Giakoumaki, I. Giegling, M. Gill, D.C. Glahn, A.R. Hariri, A. Hatzimanolis, M.C. Keller, E. Knowles, D. Koltai, B. Konte, J. Lahti, S. Le Hellard, T. Lencz, D.C. Liewald, E. London, A.J. Lundervold, A.K. Malhotra, I. Melle, D. Morris, A.C. Need, W. Ollier, A. Palotie, A. Payton, N. Pendleton, R.A. Poldrack, K. Räikkönen, I. Reinvang, P. Roussos, D. Rujescu, F.W. Sabb, M.A. Scult, O.B. Smeland, N. Smyrnis, J.M. Starr, V.M. Steen, N.C. Stefanis, R.E. Straub, K. Sundet, H. Tiemeier, A.N. Voineskos, D.R. Weinberger, E. Widen, J. Yu, G. Abecasis, O.A. Andreassen, G. Breen, L. Christiansen, B. Debrabant, D.M. Dick, A. Heinz, J. Hjerling-Leffler, M.A. Ikram, K.S. Kendler, N.G. Martin, S.E. Medland, N.L. Pedersen, R. Plomin, T.J.C. Polderman, S. Ripke, S. van der Sluis, P.F. Sullivan, S.I. Vrieze, M.J. Wright, and D. Posthuma. 2018. Genome-wide association meta-analysis in 269,867 individuals identifies new genetic and functional links to intelligence. Nature Genetics 50: 912–919. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-018-0152-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selgelid, M.J. 2009. Governance of dual-use research: An ethical dilemma. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 87: 720–723. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0042-96862009000900017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shockley, W. 1971. Negro IQ deficit: Failure of a “malicious coincidence” model warrants new research proposals. Review of Educational Research 41: 227–248. https://doi.org/10.2307/1169529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Social Science Genetic Association Consortium. n.d. Home [WWW Document]. Welcome the social science genetic association consortium SSGAC. https://www.thessgac.org. Accessed 17 Aug 2020.

  • Social Science Genetic Association Consortium. 2016. FAQs about “genome-wide association study identifies 74 loci associated with educational attainment” [WWW Document]. The Social Science Genetic Association Consortium. https://www.thessgac.org/faqs. Accessed 20 Oct 2017.

  • Specter, M. 2014. The gene factory. New Yorker.

  • Stilgoe, J., R. Owen, and P. Macnaghten. 2013. Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy 42: 1568–1580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Hastings Center. n.d. Wrestling with social and behavioral genomics: Risks, potential benefits, and ethical responsibility [WWW Document]. Hastings Cent. https://www.thehastingscenter.org/who-we-are/our-research/current-projects/wrestling-with-social-and-behavioral-genomics-risks-potential-benefits-and-ethical-responsibility/. Accessed 24 Sep 2020.

  • Turkheimer, E. 2000. Three laws of behavior genetics and what they mean. Current Directions in Psychological Science 9: 160–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00084.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UK Biobank. n.d. About UK Biobank [WWW Document]. https://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/about-biobank-uk/. Accessed 17 Aug 2020.

  • Wade, N. 2014. A troublesome inheritance: Genes, race and human history, second printing. New York: Penguin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wing, S. 2002. Social responsibility and research ethics in community-driven studies of industrialized hog production. Environmental Health Perspectives 110: 437–444. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.02110437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wingen, T., J.B. Berkessel, and B. Englich. 2020. No replication, no trust? How low replicability influences trust in psychology. Social Psychological and Personality Science 11: 454–463. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619877412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This manuscript is supported by Grant T32HG008953 (The Stanford Training Program in ELSI Research).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

    Daphne Oluwaseun Martschenko

  2. Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    Daphne Oluwaseun Martschenko

Authors
  1. Daphne Oluwaseun Martschenko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daphne Oluwaseun Martschenko.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

This manuscript is comprised of original material that is not under review elsewhere, and the subject on which the research is based has been subject to appropriate ethical review. The author declares there are no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Martschenko, D.O. “The elephant in the room”: social responsibility in the production of sociogenomics research. BioSocieties 17, 713–731 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41292-021-00239-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41292-021-00239-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation