In Search of GE: Why We Have Not Documented a Gene–Social Environment Interaction Yet

Chapter
Part of the National Symposium on Family Issues book series (NSFI)

Abstract

In this chapter, I argue that social science and genomics can be integrated – however, the way this marriage is currently occurring rests on spurious methods and assumptions and, as a result, will yield few lasting insights. Recent advances in both econometrics and developmental genomics provide scientists with a novel opportunity to understand how genes and (social) environment interact. Key to any causal inference about genetically heterogeneous effects of social conditions is that either genetics be exogenously manipulated while environment is held constant (and measured properly) and/or that environmental variation is exogenous in nature – i.e., experimental or arising from a natural experiment of sorts. Further, allele selection should be motivated by findings from genetic experiments in (model) animal studies linked to orthologous human genes. Likewise, genetic associations found in human population studies should then be tested through knock-out and overexpression studies in model organisms. Finally, epigenetic and gene expression analysis of corpse brains offers a potentially fruitful way to get at mechanisms by which social environment affects gene pathways.

Keywords

Obesity Depression Codon Dopamine Covariance 

References

  1. Angrist, J. (1990). Lifetime earnings and the Vietnam era draft lottery: Evidence from social security administrative records. American Economic Review, 80(3), 313–336.Google Scholar
  2. Caspi, A., et al. (2002). Role of genotype in the cycle of violence in maltreated children. Science, 297, 851–854.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Conley, D., & Glauber, R. (2006). Parental educational investment and children’s academic risk: Estimates of the impact of sibship size and birth order from exogenous variation in fertility, Journal of Human Resources, 41(4), 722–737.Google Scholar
  4. Conley, D., & Rauscher, E. (2010). Genetic Interactions with Prenatal Social Environment: Effects on Academic and Behavioral Outcomes. NBER Working Paper, W16026.Google Scholar
  5. Ding, W., S. F. Lehrer, J. N. Rosenquist & Audrain-McGovern, J. (2009). “The Impact of Poor Health on Academic Performance: New Evidence Using Genetic Markers.” Journal of Health Economics, 28(3), 578–597.Google Scholar
  6. Duncan, G. J., & Guo, G. (2011). Dopamine transporter genotype and freshman roommate assignment to a binge drinker. Research in progress.Google Scholar
  7. Goldberger, Arthur S. (1979). Heritability. Economica, 46(184): 327–47.Google Scholar
  8. Guo, G., & Stearns, E. (2002). The social influences on the realization of genetic potential for intellectual development. Social Forces, 80(3), 881–910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hamer, D. H., Hu, S., Magnuson, V. L., Hu, N., & Pattatucci, A. M. (1993). Sexual orientation. Science, 261, 321.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hamer, D. (2002). Rethinking Behavior Genetics. Science, 298(5591): 71–72.Google Scholar
  11. Katz, Lawrence F., Jeffrey R. Kling, and Jeffrey B. Liebman. (2001). Moving to Opportunity in Boston: Early Results of a Randomized Mobility Experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics CXVI: 607–654.Google Scholar
  12. Knowler, W. C., Williams, R. C., Pettit, D. J., & Steinberg, A. G. (1988). GM3;5,13,14 and Type 2 diabetes mellitus: An association in American Indians with genetic admixture. American Journal of Human Genetics, 43, 520–526.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Lee, David S. (2008). Randomized Experiments from Non-random Selection in U.S. House Elections. Journal of Econometrics, 142(2), 675–697.Google Scholar
  14. Lleras-Muney, Adriana. (2005). The Relationship Between Education and Adult Mortality in the U.S. Review of Economic Studies, 72(1).Google Scholar
  15. McGowan, P. O., Sasaki, A., Huang, T. C. T., Unterberger, A., Suderman, M., Ernst, C., Meany, M. J., Turecki, G., & Szyf, M. (2008). Promoter-wide hypermethylation of the ribsomomal RNA gene promoter in the suicide brain. PLoS One, 3(5), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rice, G., Anderson, C., Risch, N., & Ebers, G. (1999). Male homosexuality: Absence of linkage to microsatellite markers at Xq28. Science, 284, 665.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rodgers, J.L., D.C. Rowe, & Buster, M. (1999). Nature, Nurture and First Sexual Intercourse in the USA: Fitting Behavioural Genetic Models to NLSY Kinship Data. Journal of Biosocial Science, 31, 29–41.Google Scholar
  18. Rowe, D.C., & Teachman, J. (2001). Behavioral genetic research designs and social policy studies. In A. Thornton (Ed.), The well-being of children and families: Research and data needs. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press: 157–187.Google Scholar
  19. Sacerdote, Bruce. (2004). What Happens When We Randomly Assign Children to Families? NBER Working Paper No. 10894.Google Scholar
  20. Thornton, K. R., & Jensen, J. D. (2007). Controlling the false-positive rate in multilocus genome scans for selection. Genetics, 175, 737–750.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. van der Klaauw, W. (2002). Estimating the effect of financial aid offers on college enrollment: A regression-discontinuity approach. International Economic Review.Google Scholar
  22. Weaver IC, Cervoni N, Champagne FA, D’Alessio AC, Sharma S, Seckl JR, Dymov S, Szyf M, & Meaney MJ. (2004). Epigeneitc programming by maternal behavior. Nat Neurosci. 7(8), 847–54.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyNew York UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations