Dear Anthony G. Gordon! You wrote: “By determinism I mean the dogma that some human characteristics and behavior are programmed by our biological/genetic makeup, such there is zero room for chance, free will or any environmental influence. I think its meaning is quite clear, unlike so many other concepts that merge into mush or contradiction when discussed in the popular media.” No surprise you couldn’t find anyone living or dead who espouses this narrow rigid belief. I heard about one (Pierre-Simon de Laplace) but he was not biologist. Frankly, this «narrow rigid belief» does not look something sensible even in physics. The world is stochastic in principal. At least, such is the modern scientific belief. As I guess, you mean so called innate or inherent traits as apposed to acquired ones. This old-fashioned terminology is misleading. It hints that some traits are created by environment and some by genes. We may somehow to define what a gene is, but nobody attempted to define what a trait is. My gray hair and my Russian language are my traits. That I am biologist is also my trait. In reality, all traits are acquired, and they all are not inherited, or innate, because, strictly speaking, the fertilized ovum with its chromosomes, organelles, proteins and membranes is the only stuff inherited. All the rest is created de novo. They all are created by organism, not by environment, in the course of ontogenesis. Some “traits” are more or less constant at different environment; others are different at different environment. Yet the latter phenotypes just have more sophisticated genetic equipment. The environmental influences are just meaningful external signals. They are meaningful not in themselves. They are recognized as such by organism. Biological determination may be less complex and more complex. Our inherited ability to speak is supported by the very complex programs: to speak any language that surrounding people speak. If you think that parents teach children you are wrong. Why dogs never learn to speak? Biological determinism is very sophisticated. The term determinism is of course bad. It is too determinate. Biological determinism is clever and flexible. Environment is too stupid to modify organism. If there were no water, no SCUBA gear and waterproof coats would have ever appeared. But to say that these things result from interaction between human beings and water would be clumsy. When it is raining, I open an umbrella. Yet I do not like to think that environment rules my behavior. Any interaction of a living system with environment is of a similar sort: creativity, reason, will and mind, are on the side of living systems. Everything in biology is “biologically determined”.

You want a case of biological determinism. Here you are. Bacterial cell divides into two daughter cells. The daughter cell grows and becomes indistinguishable from the mother cell. Only one cell of 300 daughter cells will have a changed pair of nucleotides. Other cell components are reproduced somewhat less accurately, but if you take into account the improbable complexity of a leaving cell, you easily forgive it for this infinitesimal inaccuracy and recognize it as biologically determined entity. Moreover, those infinitesimal errors are also biologically determined. The achieved precision is just enough for potentially endless existence of the line of identical cells.

One more case of another kind: Take an ecosystem, e.g. freshwater lake. There are different species of bacteria, protists, fungi, water-plants, worms, insects, fishes, frogs. These very different forms live in the same environment for years and years remaining largely the same, sometimes for millions of years. They are “biologically determined”, aren’t they? Of course, they need environment. Nobody and nothing can exist without environment. I am not going to ignore the famous mantra “organism-environment unity”. I just state that the two parts of this unity are ontologically different. The notorious “forming force” of environment should be regarded as a metaphor, and a bad one. Did you ever seen identical human twins? Now image the way from zygote to adult person. OK.

There are clear genetic influences that drive personality and behavior but how those personality traits manifest themselves is very much dependent on environments. For example, addiction has a strong genetic component yet can play out in multiple ways, one can become an alcoholic or one can abstain and act out the addictive traits in other ways like long distance running or endurance sports. Similarly, high risk tolerance has a genetic basis, but whether you engage in criminal behavior or become an investment banker depends on environment (wait maybe those are too similar). High risk takers ride motorcycles, do mountaineering, skydiving, or other adrenaline seeking pursuits.

A clear example is the tenacious personality tendency of people with Down syndrome, yet its genetic basis remains the same as it has determined that these individuals possess evolve and learning, mainly due to changes in the environment and society, if that tenacity working from early care resolved, that's a fact.

One of the examples for genetic determinism is the popular belief that facial features could tell a lot about personality of a person. The facial features in turn is influenced by genes. Human character is influenced by genetic traits but the extend to which these genes determine our character is strongly influenced by environment and social constrains. In his book "The moral animal" Psychologist Robert Wright states that all humans have the capacity for feeling guilt, but environmental variables determine when a person feels guilty and how strong the feeling is.

I believe that there is a contradiction between, on the one hand, our success as a non-specialized species - we are generalists, scavengers, opportunists and the structure of our bodies reflect this, and the idea that our brains are pre-programmed.

If we were pre-programmed to see and/or respond to the world in specific ways this would seem to directly compromise our fundamental evolutionary asset.

However, there are trivial examples of how evolution can influence the cognition and behaviour of a species - the structure of the body/senses and timed hormonal events.

The Fractal Catalytic Model shifts the emphasis from the concept of a pre-programmed brain to the predominant role that implicit structures in stimulus (from the body and the senses) have in driving brain development.

Indeed, when evolution attempts to play a role in more complex cognitive/psychological processes - like sex - it seems to be capable of getting the whole thing completely wrong!!!!

If I may add a not-sophisticated comment (comparing it to the previous ones), the human organism (and most organisms, I think), is far too complex and interdependent with the environment in all its stages of development, for such determinism to be ever possible.

There are examples of characters clearly genetically determined: the color of the eyes, the lack/malfunction of an enzyme due to mutation that determines a specific genetic disease.

But most of our more complex characteristics (intelligence, behaviour, metabolic profile), are all defined through continuous interaction with the internal/external environment, up to a point in time when they tend to cristalise and become most difficult to change.

I got convinced by the opinion that there is a very strong imprinting upon the metabolic profile - I tend to consider it also upon the personality - that acts from the fetal life and involves the biochemical environment in which the development takes place. It continues through the postnatal development, when all the characteristics of the environment (nutrition, family, society), model the organism to such a degree (up to the chemistry of our brain), that it is not altoghether wrong to consider the free will as something strongly limited if not practically inconsistent (I remember prof. Robert Sapolsky, at the end of one set of lectures in neurobiology and behavioural biology, asking his students which of them still believes in free will).

The exclusively genetic determinism seems to be a very confortable choice if one wishes to disregard the necessity of improving the social environment in which we live, preferring to consider it irrelevant.

To your question, whether some human characteristics and behavior are programmed by our biological/genetic makeup, such there is zero room for chance, free will or any environmental influence, consider the following. Chromosomal sex-determination is in essence deterministic. The outcome is clear, no male can bear a child (forget about using sea horses as an exemption). This example is not without danger of being misused or abused to feed Chauvinistic ideas. Other life forms show multiple examples of deterministic control over the outcome of the life cycle of an organism, for instance whether rotifers produce haploid or a diploid gametes, with very different reproductive strategies and adult stages: diploid/sexual or haploid/asexual.

It is true, down to this level the behaviour it is not predictable. However, it can be predictable the general way in which one would react - that is, the fact that one of Mozart's reaction to an event would be to write music.

Marketing and politics are quite profitable businesses because there are ways of statisticaly predicting and modulating choices.

I would also argue for a certain degree of predictability/determinism regarding ones mating choices and sexual behaviour.

While I believe that anybody's knowledge should be improved, made aware of the effect of various factors upon our lives, so we can increase the quality of an educated free will. I believe this could be effective for cutting short exactly the effects you fear (that may actually be enhanced by 'elitism' + ignorance of the majority) - more that once I have seen, with a shiver of actual horror, how the feeling of power and security of very qualified professionals may induce them in taking so easily decisions upon the ones depending on them, disregarding the best interest they should defend - all while being looked up to with revered blind trust by the very damaged subjects.

The challenge is that this educational approach is necessarily continuous, dynamic and demands personal responsability. And of course it has to be this way, it is natural that when you establish a path/rule/change there will always be an amount of 'dispersion'/readjustment due to opposed/different interests and influences. As they say: once yo make a law you showed the way to break it. It's life. No choice but letting it be.

"There are examples of characters clearly genetically determined: the color of the eyes, the lack/malfunction of an enzyme due to mutation that determines a specific genetic disease"

I think the more you look into it, the less this statement seems to be true. So could someone provide a very specific example, ie which gene always produces the same immutable outcome.

"The exclusively genetic determinism seems to be a very confortable choice if one wishes to disregard the necessity of improving the social environment in which we live, preferring to consider it irrelevant"

This is the constant accusation made against any scientist who believes in any biological influence of any kind or degree. Whole areas of research into socially relevant problems are gene free because of this objection. I think we all need to be told the names of those scientists guilty of determinism, which all(?) the above answers agree is a ridiculous doctrine, so they can be confronted by other scientists rather than just being pilloried in the media.

Pablo, just because bad people do bad things with science it does not follow that science, or its conclusions are bad - in an ideal world science should be free of politics.

A passing thought inspired by what has been said -

'I wonder if it useful to think of plotting the effect of biological determinism against the complexity of the organism. twenty bacteria will all behave in an identical way given a sugar gradient but will twenty human beings all behave the same way given a stimulus?

Also, I wonder if anybody has read the 'Foundation Trilogy' by Isaac Asimov - an absolutely fantastic exploration of the idea social determinism on a galactic scale.

Chris

"Chromosomal sex-determination is in essence deterministic."

It either is, or it isn't. See Wikipedia on Gender Testing:

"While it would seem a simple case of checking for XX vs. XY chromosomes to determine whether an athlete is a woman or a man, it is not that simple. Fetuses start out as undifferentiated, and the Y chromosome turns on a variety of hormones that differentiate the baby as a male. Sometimes this does not occur, and people with two X chromosomes can develop hormonally as a male, and people with an X and a Y can develop hormonally as a female"

"I am fearful that determinism may be applied to human beings, and that our fate will be 'singled out' and predetermined as Nazi Germany tried once"

One effective way to combat this is surely to state that no scientist believes in such determinism, unless someone here can come with an example pretty soon. Scientists who believe in biological components of human behaviour are relentlessly accused of being Nazis. Nazi ideology as far as I can see was based on new-age mysticism, romanticism, racism and nationalism, and had nothing at all to do with science or any scientific knowledge.

Dear dr. Gordon, I cannot immagine a scientist believing exclusively in the genetic determinism. While there are examples of such effects, there is sufficient data on the role of the environment to exclude any unilateral view. I take the liberty of bringing some examples, sorry for the largeness of the comment.

Examples of genetic determinism (whether dominant or recessive, genic or chromosomic):

- Huntington's corea

- Down's syndrome

- haemophilia

- thalassemia (there are various forms)

- cystic fibrosis

- familial hypercholesterolemia

- malignant hyperthermia (indeed, the symptoms are triggered, in the individuals affected, by exposition to particular chemicals)

- list of mendelian traits (wikipedia)

- Genetic fatalism and social policy: the implications of behavior genetics research.

Alper JS, Beckwith J.

Department of Chemistry, University of Massachusetts-Boston 02125, USA.

Abstract

Recent advances in molecular genetics methods have provided new means of determining the genetic bases of human behavioral traits. The impetus for the use of these approaches for specific behaviors depends, in large part, on previous familial studies on inheritance of such traits. In the past, a finding of a genetic basis for a trait was often accompanied with the idea that that trait is unchangeable. We discuss the definition of "genetic trait" and heritability and examine the relationship between these concepts and the malleability of traits for both molecular and nonmolecular approaches to behavioral genetics. We argue that the malleability of traits is as much a social and political question as it is a biological one and that whether or not a trait is genetic has little relevance to questions concerning determinism, free will, and individual responsibility for actions. We conclude by noting that "scientific objectivity" should not be used to conceal the social perspectives that underlie proposals regarding social change.

- Genomics and the Nature of Behavioral and Social Risk.

McGue M.

Source

The author is with the Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and with the Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.

Abstract

In 1999, Francis Collins, then head of the Human Genome Project, used the occasion of the Shattuck Lecture to speculate about the impact sequencing of the human genome would have on medical practice.1 He envisioned the availability of genome-level data that would transform clinical risk assessment and prevention practices, ushering in a new era of genetically informed personalized medicine. The Human Genome Project has had a profound impact on our understanding of the structure and function of the human genome, the nature of genetic variation, and the basis of Mendelian disease. It has, however, had a much more limited impact on our ability to detect and prevent the manifestation of genetic risk for common inherited disorders such as cardiovascular disease, dementia, obesity, diabetes, and all of the psychiatric disorders. Yet despite limited progress, there is much reason to be optimistic. Genetic epidemiologists are identifying the genetic variants underlying common disease; model organisms are being used to map pathophysiological mechanisms at the molecular level; and we are beginning to understand how genetic risk can be modulated by environmental factors ranging from the molecular to the cultural. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print August 8, 2013: e1-e3. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2013.301527).

PMID: 23927546

- Changes in brain MicroRNAs contribute to cholinergic stress reactions.

Meerson A, Cacheaux L, Goosens KA, Sapolsky RM, Soreq H, Kaufer D.

Source

Department of Biological Chemistry, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 91904, Jerusalem, Israel.

Abstract

Mental stress modifies both cholinergic neurotransmission and alternative splicing in the brain, via incompletely understood mechanisms. Here, we report that stress changes brain microRNA (miR) expression and that some of these stress-regulated miRs regulate alternative splicing. Acute and chronic immobilization stress differentially altered the expression of numerous miRs in two stress-responsive regions of the rat brain, the hippocampal CA1 region and the central nucleus of the amygdala. miR-134 and miR-183 levels both increased in the amygdala following acute stress, compared to unstressed controls. Chronic stress decreased miR-134 levels, whereas miR-183 remained unchanged in both the amygdala and CA1. Importantly, miR-134 and miR-183 share a common predicted mRNA target, encoding the splicing factor SC35. Stress was previously shown to upregulate SC35, which promotes the alternative splicing of acetylcholinesterase (AChE) from the synapse-associated isoform AChE-S to the, normally rare, soluble AChE-R protein. Knockdown of miR-183 expression increased SC35 protein levels in vitro, whereas overexpression of miR-183 reduced SC35 protein levels, suggesting a physiological role for miR-183 regulation under stress. We show stress-induced changes in miR-183 and miR-134 and suggest that, by regulating splicing factors and their targets, these changes modify both alternative splicing and cholinergic neurotransmission in the stressed brain.

PMID: 19711202

And rats...

- Maternal Deprivation Enhances Behavioral Vulnerability to Stress Associated with miR-504 Expression in Nucleus Accumbens of Rats.

Zhang Y, Zhu X, Bai M, Zhang L, Xue L, Yi J. PMID23922862

"Examples of genetic determinism (whether dominant or recessive, genic or chromosomic):

- Huntington's corea"

HC is usually the first and most likely disease anyone comes up with as an example of genetic determinism. But see below:

"Arch Neurol. 2005 Jun;62(6):995-7.

Monozygotic twins discordant for Huntington disease after 7 years.

Friedman JH, Trieschmann ME, Myers RH, Fernandez HH.

BACKGROUND:

Huntington disease (HD) has only rarely been identified in identical twins. All described twins have had disease onset within 1 year of each other, suggesting that disease onset is determined solely by genetic influences.

OBJECTIVE:

To describe a unique set of monozygotic twins in whom clinical HD onset is at least 7 years apart.

DESIGN:

A 71-year-old woman was diagnosed as having HD based on medical history, physical examination results consistent with HD, and a CAG trinucleotide repeat number of 39 in the HD gene on chromosome 4. Her onset was 6 years earlier. Her genetically confirmed identical twin, carrying the same number of CAG repeats, was neurologically healthy when examined the next year. Only the HD-manifest twin had chronic bronchitis, rheumatoid arthritis, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and chronic anemia. Both had hypertension.

CONCLUSIONS:

To our knowledge, this is the first report of monozygotic twins discordant for HD by more than 2 years. The onset of HD symptoms in a patient with 39 triplet repeats at least 7 years earlier than her identical twin suggests the possibility that the disease may be initiated (or delayed) by environmental factors. We have identified increased cigarette use and longer exposure to various industrial toxins as potential explanations for the earlier onset in one twin

I don't think anyone will argue that single gene disorders are not deterministic if one carries a mutation. I thing the essence of the question is whether our behavior can be determined by genetics. Yes, there are strong genetic components to behavior but they are not absolute. Studies with identical twins raised apart show that sexual orientation has a strong genetic influence, about 50%, for example. Other aspects of behavior or personality are also likely to have genetic components but the real issue is whether these are predictive? One may be predisposed to aggression or high risk behavior but that does not mean you will become a violent criminal. These same traits can be found in competitive athletes or CEOs. Anyone who has raised multiple children has seen that there are inherent personality traits that seem to be set from early on. How you use those traits is the issue and how can they be channeled towards positive goals is the key.

"I don't think anyone will argue that single gene disorders are not deterministic if one carries a mutation."

Assuming I have correctly deconstructed the double negative, I am precisely arguing, admittedly on the basis of other people's work, that most, if not all, single gene disorders are probabilistic not deterministic. See the review below for references of MZ twins discordant for Huntington's disease, Downs, hemophilia, cystic fibrosis, etc.

"Identical But Not the Same: The Value of Discordant

Monozygotic Twins in Genetic Research

Petra J.G. Zwijnenburg,1* Hanne Meijers-Heijboer,1 and Dorret I. Boomsma2

Accepted 4 March 2010

Monozygotic (MZ) twins show remarkable resemblance in many

aspects of behavior, health, and disease. Until recently,MZtwins

were usually called ‘‘genetically identical’’; however, evidence for

genetic and epigenetic differences within rare MZ twin pairs has

accumulated. Here, we summarize the literature on MZ twins

discordant for Mendelian inherited disorders and chromosomal

abnormalities. A systematic literature search for English articles

on discordant MZ twin pairs was performed in Web of Science

and PubMed. A total number of 2,016 publications were retrieved

and reviewed and 439 reports were retained. Discordant

MZ twin pairs are informative in respect to variability of phenotypic

expression, pathogenetic mechanisms, epigenetics, and

post-zygotic mutagenesis and may serve as a model for research

on genetic defects. The analysis of single discordant MZ twin

pairs may represent an elegant approach to identify genes in

inherited disorders.

"Examples of genetic determinism (whether dominant or recessive, genic or chromosomic):

- malignant hyperthermia (indeed, the symptoms are triggered, in the individuals affected, by exposition to particular chemicals)"

According to the dictionaries I have consulted, determinism means that given the gene, the condition will develop regardless of whether or not any particular chemical is present in addition.

For HD, Downs, thalassemias, CF, etc. the issue is how you define the phenotype. There is varying penetrance in that the disease does not always occur at the same time with the same severity even among twins, but you can be assured that the disease will rear its ugly head sooner or later if you carry a dominant mutation. The severity and age of onset can be modified by environment, the immune response, and genetic background in non-identical sibs. HD is interesting in that expansion or contraction of the poly-Q domain can occur in somatic cells, so even identical twins may have a different amount of Q repeats in the affected neurons. Still, the mutations are deterministic enough to warrant genetic testing.

This is one of the moments when I'm very glad to be here, on RG. Thank you, Professors.

For the sake of precision, I would like to comment on the argument of the monozygotic twins, please correct me if I'm wrong:

- If the MZ twins are identical (exactly the same genes), then any phenotypical differences between them can be attributed to environmental influence and I suppose this may support the theory that single gene disorders are probabilistic, not deterministic (like in the article on HD you presented above, considering however dr. Dressler’s observation)

- If, however, the MZ twins are not identical (following data saying that between them might exist important genetic differences, up to different cariotype), then phenotypic differences between them cannot support your probabilistic theory because the twins express different genes - they may actually serve as proof against this theory -- I specify this because the second article you mention seems of this type ("Identical But Not the Same: The Value of Discordant Monozygotic Twins in Genetic Research Petra J.G. Zwijnenburg)

- Inequivocable validation of the probabilistic nature of single gene characters expression theory may depend on future developments in genetics and other disciplines involved.

* Some causes of genotypic and phenotypic discordance in monozygotic twin pairs.Machin GA.

Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Alberta Hospitals, Edmonton, Canada.

Abstract

The use of the adjective "identical" rather than monozygotic leads to misunderstandings about the biology of monozygotic twinning. Mostmonozygotic twin pairs are not identical; there may be major discordance for birth weight, genetic disease, and congenital anomalies. These indicate that postzygotic events may lead to the formation of two or more cell clones in the inner cell mass and early embryo that actually stimulate themonozygotic twinning event. There is also evidence that there may be unequal allocation of numbers of cells to the monozygotic twins; this may have widespread implications for the cascade of developmental events during embryogenesis, formation, and vascularization of the placenta. Large-scale zygosity testing at birth could be the template for analysis of twin outcomes and their biologic causes.PMID:8741866

* Monozygotic twins discordant for trisomy 13: counselling and management issues.Dixit A, Tanteles G, Ocraft K, McEwan A, Sarkar A.

Department of Clinical Genetics, Nottingham City Hospital, Nottingham, UK.

Abstract

The diagnosis and management of a heterokaryotypic monochorionic pregnancy, in which one of twins had trisomy 13, is presented. Monozygosity and discordant karyotypes were confirmed by amniocentesis of both the sacs. Radiofrequency ablation of the trisomic twin was successfully performed at 18-weeks gestation and the pregnancy ended at term with the birth of a healthy girl who remains well on follow-up at 12 months of age. We reiterate the importance of early amniocentesis of both the sacs in the presence of discordant fetal abnormalities and consideration of selective fetal termination to optimise the outcome of heterokaryotypic monochorionic twin pregnancies.PMID:22842802

*Non-identical monozygotic twins, intermediate twin types, zygosity testing, and the non-random nature ofmonozygotic twinning: a review.Machin G.

Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. [email protected]

Abstract

Monozygotic twins (MZ) are rarely absolutely "identical." This review discusses the types of genetic/epigenetic and prenatal environmental post-zygotic mechanisms that cause discordance within such twin pairs. Some of these mechanisms--ranging from heterokaryotypia to skewed X-chromosome inactivation--may cause extreme discordance, but these extremes are merely the more emphatic examples of discordance that, to some degree, underlies the majority of MZ twin pairs. Because of the entrenched misconception that MZ twins are necessarily identical, many MZ twin pairs are mistakenly designated as dizygotic (DZ). Clinical benefits to accurate zygosity determination include correct solid organ transplantation matching, if one twin requires donation for a non-genetically mediated disease; the opportunity of preventive management for disorders that do not manifest synchronously; and better counseling to parents regarding their individually unique, and often psychologically puzzling, twin offspring. In twin pairs with complex and confusing biological origins, more detailed zygosity testing may be required. For example, intermediate trigametic and tetragametic chimeric dizygotic twins are reviewed, some of whom are, nevertheless, monochorionic (MC). Because of inter-fetal vascular anastomoses in MC twins, genetic results from blood samples may not accurately reflect discordance in solid organs. Previously, it was thought that MZ twinning was some sort of embryological fluke. However, familial monozygotic twinning is more common than suggested by the literature. Seven new families are presented in an accompanying paper. Despite the difficulties and dangers of twin pregnancy (especially so for MC twins), human twinning persists, and continues to both challenge and fascinate parents, clinicians and geneticists.PMID19363805

"Still, the mutations are deterministic enough to warrant genetic testing."

I have long suspected that some persons use 'deterministic' in the weak sense of 'relevant', as here. If so, then this is bound to cause immense confusion, and is responsible for the low regard that biologists have in the public arena. Deterministic can then be used in two quite contradictory senses, either something must happen, or it may not. Are there any dictionaries that support the probabilistic usage of 'deterministic'?

Blake, MZ twins are not always identical, as you point out. However, there are enough examples of MZ twins with the same gene(s) in question, irrespective of what other differences there are between them, who nevertheless have different phenotypes, and not just different grades of the disorder, but one has it, the other doesn't.

Incidentally, I am not a Professor! Had I been one, I would have ended up with a far lower RG score.

"For HD..... you can be assured that the disease will rear its ugly head sooner or later if you carry a dominant mutation."

See Nancy Wexler's definitive family study in PNAS 2004:

"For years, HD was thought to be the epitome of genetic determinism: with more than 40 CAG repetitions, the huntingtin gene invariably causes death. Alleles with 60 or more repeats will definitely cause disease at age 20 or younger. The age of onset decreases as the number of repeats increases. However, investigation of the huntingtin genes in the Venezuelan kindreds and phenotypic analysis show that age of onset varies widely among people with the same number of repeats.

Huntington's has been touted as the least malleable disease, but we're finding there is a huge amount of variation in age of onset and severity of symptoms," Dr. Wexler says. "We hope that our project will find the genes and environmental factors that offer treatments and cures. We do not merely want to make the disease milder. Our aim is to stop the disease altogether – either by preventing it from appearing or pushing the age of onset to 140 years, well beyond a normal lifespan."

The term was meant with the sense of 'teacher', which can be appropriated when you learn from someone - thank you, I'm learning here. I share your enthusiasm on this subject and its validity for complex characters..

However, as long as I have not studied sufficiently the single gene expression (and it is only the simplest case, we could talk of two gene characters) from the point of view of phenotypical differences, I cannot be convinced to generalize the probabilistic view. As long as there are exceptions - and in biology happens often - I will not consider it a theory, only a mechanism in a context to be understood better.

And this does not mean determinism or anything else, just plain reality without words attached to it. Our problem is not the science, but the abnormal use of words and other tools of mass distraction. Sorry for O'Reily (I hate him compasionately).

The problem I see here is with defining determinism with respect to single gene disorders. If your definition of deterministic is that you will get the disease and die by age 25, then you are correct that in the case of poly-Q expansion disease this is unlikely to happen in 100% of individuals carrying the same mutation. If you define determinism as the probability of getting the disease before age 50 or within a lifetime, then it is about as close to 100% as you can get. Much of this also relates to how you define the "disease" and at what point to people get treatment. In the clinical realm, this is not an easy problem to solve. CF is probably a better example, where the disease is diagnosed early but progression and death varies greatly with treatment and opportunistic infections.

As I pointed out, poly-Q expansions can vary among cells even within the same individual. Since these disease affect primarily subsets of neurons, you cannot assume that affected neurons have the same number of Q repeats that are found in DNA preps from the peripheral lymphocytes that are commonly used for genotyping.

I hope the attached essay will inform this discussion. After more than a half-century of research in behavioral genetics, I continue to learn new facts from the study of twins from various vantage points. Check out PubMed for A. Petronis, epigenomics, and endophenotypes.

Essay.

Re the MM/IG chapter, see previous answer.

"“…the consequent grade of intelligence or mental level for each individual is determined by the kind of chromosomes that come together with the union of the germ cells: That is but little affected by any later influences except such serious accidents as may destroy part of the mechanism.”

This doctrine of genetic determinism when combined with another of Galton’s intellectual progeny, would prove a volatile mix."

MM and IG conclude from the above quotation from Goddard that he was a genetic determinist, but here are two major paradoxical problems with this reading:

1. First, as they note, HHG was a leading developmental psychologist, concerned with training those with low IQ for example.

2. The above quotation is self-contradictory. Determinism, according to Stedman's Medical Dictionary, 2000, is "The proposition that all behavior is caused exclusively by genetic and environmental influences with no random components, and independent of free will". Determinism is a categorical, all--or-nothing concept, leaving nothing for "any later influences". Did Goddard actually mean to use the word "Defined", in the senses arranged/set/disposed/set up/formed, rather than in the senses settled/fixed/determined (see Roget 1987)?

MM/IG's chapter certainly informs the discussion, but most social scientists will simply not read it, or if they do, will immediately dismiss it since geneticists are indelibly stamped with the label of genetic determinists, ie genes are all that matter. The reason biologists dismiss much of social science is not because biologists are determinists, but because most social science research, and especially a century of developmental psychology, is essentially ambiguous and thus uninterpretable if a genetically informed approach to research has not been taken.

From MM/IG's chapter

"the Nazis seized upon eugenic scholarship in an attempt to provide a scientific justification for their racial hygiene policies."

This universally believed appropriation has been immensely damaging to modern genetics, and any scientist brave enough to suggest biology has any possible relevance to any social problem is immediately labelled a Nazi, and debate is shut down before it can even start. I actually suspect this statement is historically inaccurate. I have ploughed through Mein Kampf without finding any reference to biology or science in it. So can anyone provide Chapter and Verse to show that Nazi ideology or policies had anything at all to do with Science?

While I agree with most responses, I would like to throw something way into left field. What about what independent researchers including myself call the second genome – heritable changes in gene expression that are not actually encoded in the DNA of the genome. These effects are mediated by the covalent attachment of chemical groups to DNA and its associated proteins, histones and chromatin. A few examples of such changes include, but are not limited to, histone acetylation, histone methylation, and DNA methylation. These changes, which occur during mitosis, are heritable and control the potential of a genomic region to be transcribed into a specific phenotype. Additionally, researchers1 have shown that post-translational modifications have been linked to gene regulation, cellular stress events, aging, and DNA repair.

A case in point is the landmark paper by Heijmans2 and colleagues, who demonstrated that adult disease risk is associated with adverse environmental conditions early in embryonic development. Heijmans studied individuals who were prenatally exposed to famine during the Dutch Hunger Winter, when the Germans imposed a food embargo in Holland during the winter of 1944/45. His team found that prenatal exposure to famine is associated with persistent hypomethylation of the insulin growth factor 2 (IGF2). Multiple studies of families, adoptees, twins and adopted twins3-4 have all confirmed that heritable factors are likely to be responsible for 45-75% of the inter-individual variation in body mass index5-6.

A rash of new research has focused on self-control as well as callousness and a lack of empathy, traits regularly implicated in the decision to commit a crime. Like other personality traits, these are believed to have environmental and genetic components, although the degree of heritability is debated.

In findings from a long-term study of 1,000 babies born in 1972 in a New Zealand town, Moffitt and her colleagues at Kings College, recently reported that the less self-control a child displayed at 3 years of age, the more likely he or she was to commit a crime more than 30 years later. Forty-three percent of the children who scored in the lowest fifth on self-control were later convicted of a crime, she said, versus 13 percent of those who scored in the highest fifth.

But a predisposition is not destiny. Knowing something is inherited does not tell us anything about whether changing the environment will improve it? For example, self-control is a lot like height, it varies widely in the human population, and it is highly heritable, but if an effective intervention such as better nutrition is applied to the whole population, then everyone gets taller than the last generation.

There was a 2002 study by Moffitt7, which showed that low levels of MAOA expression to be associated with aggressiveness and criminal conduct of young boys reared in abusive environments. Cases et al8 had previously established in animal studies that if the monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) gene is knocked out (neutralized) in mice, they become highly aggressive. Reactivate the gene and they return to their normal behaviour patterns. This MAOA gene has been referred to as the “criminal” gene by defence attorneys but the military has given it the nickname the “warrior gene.”

In humans, another interesting gene, the NR3C1 gene, encodes a protein expressed in neurons called glucocorticoids. Lower expression of NR3C1 increases stress and is associated with psychotic and severe forms of depression.

Plato reported that a man was banished from a city because he was the third generation in his family to be found guilty of committing a crime. Obviously, his status as a third generation criminal was considered important evidence against him. Banishment was interpreted to mean that no further generations of this criminal family would be born in that city. Maybe this was the first recorded legal finding and sentencing based on genetics.

Good luck!

References

1. Bouchard, C., M. Chagnon, M. C. Thibault, et al. 1988. Absence of charge variants in human skeletal muscle enzymes of the glycolytic pathway. Hum. Genet. 78:100.

2. Heijmans B. T., Tobi E. W., Stein A. D., et al. Persistent epigenetic differences associated with prenatal exposure to famine in humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:17046–17049;2008.

3. Stunkard A. J., Harris J. R., Pedersen N. L., and McClearn G. E. The body-mass index of rwins who have been reared apart. N Engl J Med 1990; 322: 1483-1487.

4. Price R. A., Gottesman II. Body fat in identical twins reared apart. roles for genes and environment. Bebau Genet 1991; 21: 1-7.

5. Sorensen T. I., Price R. A., Srunkard A. J., and Schulsinger F. Genetics of obesity in adult adoptees and their biological siblings. BMJ 1989;298: 87-90.

6. Stunkard A. J.,et al. An adoption study of human obesity. N Engl J Med 1986; 314: 193-198.

7. Avshalom Caspi, Joseph McClay, Terrie E. Moffitt, et al. (2002). Role of Genotype in the Cycle of Violence in Maltreated Children. Science 2 August 2002: Vol. 297. no. 5582, pp. 851 - 854

8. Cases, O., Seif, I., Grimsby, J., Gaspar, P., Chen, K., Pournin, S., et al. (1995). Aggressive behavior and altered amounts of brain serotonin and norepinephrine in mice lacking MAOA. Science, 268, 1763–1766.

Whenever I consider the issue of genetic (or biological) determinism, and findings that are reported in quite a deterministic way (which I think is the real issue), I like to borrow the concept of reciprocal determinism from Psychology (my discipline), to try to think through the various types of interactions (passive, active, reactive etc.), that might take you from point A to predicted point B. That usually removes any notion of a straightforward determinism, and lazy thinking about 'nature'!

"findings that are reported in quite a deterministic way"

" notion of a straightforward determinism"

Surely determinism is like virginity, a word that precludes any adjectival modification?

Are psychologists using determinism in a different sense to that defined in the first sentence of the question posed?

I would judge your use/examples of determinism to be synonymous with the accusation of reductionism, which can occur on a sliding scale and is not a binary phenomenon, like virginity (although, American politics may have a person question that too).

I think the behaviour of dogs is due to their biological and physiological makeup, not due to their exercise of free will. See also Morgan's Canon. However, I don't think any of their behaviour is determined. The route from genes to physiology to behaviour is probabilistic not deterministic, and depends on environmental input and shaping.

I would have to disagree with you regarding free will. I think dogs do display it, particularly around food preferences and a lack of desire to go for a walk. Shaping and conditioning ignore the black box and have nothing to say on the matter. Interestingly, there are tables of 'dog intelligence', based on their capacity to learn and be trained. A collie rates very highly. It's funny to contrast that with cat behaviour - it's generally thought that they are more intelligent and they are allowed to do what they like, largely, and are considered difficult to train (but can use human loos). We have some animal behaviour experts in my department - I may have to ask them more over coffee. Many ethicists (focussing on the capacity to feel pain) would reverse Morgan's Canon.

"I would have to disagree with you regarding free will. I think dogs do display it"

Surely you are not using free will in the same sense as for humans. How do you define the term, bearing Morgan's Canon in mind? And do snails have free will?

" A collie rates very highly"

My father worked in the countryside and organised shoots, so always needed a dog. He chose hybrids of collie and spaniel. On shoots, the pure spaniels would stand by their masters and retrieve when asked. My father's dogs ended up doing all the work, flushing out and chasing the game and generally making themselves useful. I know of someone who is studying intelligence in dogs, and is likely to confirm that there is a general factor 'g' and that the ranking of dog breeds by intelligence is valid.

I would be surprised if it is generally accepted that cats are more intelligent than dogs.

" Knowing something is inherited does not tell us anything about whether changing the environment will improve it? For example, self-control is a lot like height, it varies widely in the human population, and it is highly heritable, but if an effective intervention such as better nutrition is applied to the whole population, then everyone gets taller than the last generation"

No. I think behavior genetic studies tell us which environmental factors matter, and, crucially, which don't. There is a large genetic component to height, with the rest due to specific environment (including chance and error). There is NO lasting common environment effect, as with most other personal characteristics. So better nutrition or wealth for the whole population does not account for secular increases in height over the last century, since these do not explain why sibs differ, nor why MZ twins are more similar than DZ twins.

I would refer you to the philosopher and bioethicist, Singer, I think. I believe he would argue that discussions about free will and intelligence are red herrings, certainly as a starting point for ethical debates. Examining ones own objectivity, and speciesism, might be a better launch pad, and counterbalance, to avoid repetitions of historical disasters associated with bad science.

I would vote you up, Pablo, but that might be viewed as narcissism!

In the 3 weeks since this question was posed, there has been just one nomination for a genetic determinist. The name supplied, H Goddard, would probably have been at the top of the list of likely adherents. However, the quotation from him supplied by Irving G is quite ambiguous, as already noted. I have now located the whole of the excerpted paragraph from Goddard, which starts

"Stated in its boldest form, our thesis is that the chief determiner of human conduct is a unitary mental process which we call intelligence.." (as copied from Fancher RE The Intelligence Men 1985). Fancher also expressed surprise at this paragraph, given that HG was the world's leading advocate of Binet's approach to tests and B "believed that there were certain things one could deliberately do to improve the intelligence levels of retarded children" p 78.

This confirms my suspicion that HG used 'determiner' in the sense of 'influence', not in the strong absolute sense as defined in my original question. Thus, if IQ is 'determined' by genes, there is no room for any further causal factors.

I have also looked at The Kallikak Family by H H Goddard 1913 for further clarification of language and terms used.

"The Kallikak family presents a natural experiment in heredity" p 116.

"We thus have two series from two different mothers but the same father. They extend for six generations. Both lines live out their lives in practically the same region and in the same environment, except in so far as they themselves, because of their different characters, changed that environment." p 50.

"Clearly it was not environment that has made that good family. They made their environment; and their own good blood, with the good blood in the families into which they married, told" p 53.

"Criminals are made and not born" p 54.

"So we have, as is claimed, partly from statistical studies and partly from careful observation, abundant evidence of the truth of our claim that criminality is often made out of feeble-mindedness" p 58.

"The kind of criminality into which they fall seems to depend largely upon their environment. If they are associated with vicious but intelligent people, they become the dupes for carrying out any of the hazardous schemes that their more intelligent associates plan for them" p 55.

"Environment, determines criminality, 55" Index, p 119.

This clearly shows that Goddard uses 'determine' in a weak sense of 'cause', and is no more an environmental determinist than a genetic determinist, so is not the bogey man so often portrayed.

Another name that often crops up as an exemplar of crude determinism is Lombroso. Here is what HG has to say (p 59):

"Lombroso's famous criminal types, in so far as they were types, may have been types of feeble-mindedness on which criminality was grafted by the circumstances of their environment".

I think it is also worth noting that there are different forms of determinism and sometimes, twisted and combined, they can be even worse and somehow, convince people like Goddard that sterilisation and/or 'societal quarantine' are the way forward for 'the feeble minded' etc. It's fairly simple to take down pure biological determinism, i think we can agree. It is perhaps more challenging to address a societal prejudice dressed up in 'science'.

Anthony - you could probably dissect Goddards's arguments to gain insight, with switches in the direction of the determinism (biological and environmental) and beliefs about the gradient of rights that are afforded to you due to perceived intelligence/free will, with sterilisation as your logical endpoint...

You can then try to construct the views of different bioethicists around this. Singer, for example, attacks the logic at the point of rights based on perceived intelligence/free will, and constructs rights on the basis of capacity to suffer. Other capacities are then reintroduced for debate at a later stage.

P.S. add in points of contention and I would really like to see that bioethical map!

Rereading Fancher, I find he has misunderstood Goddard's point about the worse environments on the bad branch (p 114):

"Since the two branches had entirely contrasting environments from the very beginning, Goddard's assertion that they had been reared 'in the same environment, except in so far as they themselves, because of their different characters, changed the [sic] environment is patently unjustified'".

As Goddard later stated of the good branch, "They made their environment". Or, as Wikipedia puts it rather more ponderously:

"Of principal interest are those causal mechanisms, which indicate genetic control over environmental exposure. Genetic variants influence environmental exposure indirectly via behavior. Three causal mechanisms giving rise to gene-environment correlations have been described.

(i) Passive gene-environment correlation refers to the association between the genotype a child inherits from her parents and the environment in which the child is raised...

(ii) Evocative (or reactive) gene-environment correlation happens when an individual's (heritable) behavior evokes an environmental response....

(iii) Active gene-environment correlation occurs when an individual possesses a heritable propensity to select environmental exposure."

The last sentence of The Kallikak Family reads:

"But this [sterilization] must at present be regarded only as a makeshift and temporary, for before it can be extensively practiced, a great deal must be learned about the effects of the operation and about the laws of human inheritance."

Hardly a ringing endorsement, and in any case he supposedly later changed his mind about this.

I think it is confusing to refer to Goddard's biological or environmental "determinism", since he is using the word in a different (regional US?) sense to the modern usage, as defined in my question.

I was reading this earlier and I thought it a very good insight into what someone means when they accuse a scientist of determinism and reductionism (Interesting journals too). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3464452/

It's really not just the geneticists who are pilloried, although people tend to find them more offensive! As scientists, we are basically being told we need to think more about the qualitative in order to balance our quantitative thinking in order to assert ourselves in any shape or form in the arena of scientific translation/intervention.

I also think it is often the interviewer, rather than the interviewee, who forces the scientist to make the jump and we/they are not always particularly well equipped to do so. We also tend to come up with suggestions for applications as we approach the end of our manuscripts which often fall into the category of 'not my expertise' (yet...).

Sometimes though, people are out of their depth and they just don't realise it/deny it.

Environmental determinism is alive and kicking in the popular media. See London Metro Sept 19, p 2. ("The world's most popular free newspaper") :

"Healthy life expectancy, it [ONS] concluded, is determined by being in a job, living in decent housing and having an adequate income". The headline states "Move to a genteel London borough -- and live longer".

So this excludes at a single stroke any biological influence. Actually, I think the explanation is simply that people live in more affluent areas because they and their families before them have been generally abler, healthier and fitter, which is why they have succeeded in life and been able to buy houses in prosperous areas.

I think I have now found clarification on the meanings of determine. See Kipfer BA (1992) Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus in Dictionary Form:

determine (v3): choose, decide, (pre)destine, doom, establish, fate, (fore)ordain, settle, etc

determine (v4): affect, bound, condition, delimit, dictate, direct, incline, influence, regulate, shape, etc.

Any scientist determined (=set) to use determine (v4) (=influence) will find that the media and especially biology phobes will cynically determine (v3) (=decide) that determine (v4) (=predestine) was what had been intended (v = have in mind; determine).

Hence scientists would be well advised never to use the word determine in any of its forms or meanings. Having said that, I think it is clear what genetic determinists are, except that they turn out to be figments of the imagination of those who don't like science.

I had some of those thoughts too, Pablo! I find the integrative nature of it appealing though - you often have to look to a newspaper (or brothers!) to get alternative takes on these things. You can often meet that disdain in business people as well, and I do think it has something to do with the scientist's belief in the supremacy of numbers and quantification and effect sizes.... Business people certainly look at numbers but they rarely act, or act in an inferential manner, with reference to qualitative assessment/focus groups etc. Many medical schools judge entry from the humanities etc. as a very favourable thing and I suspect that we are, by-the-by, addressing some of the reasons why that might be.

On BBC R4 this morning there was an interview with an Australian scientist who had worked on the Testis-determining Factor, a gene said to determine male sex. I was curious to see in what sense "determining" was used, but after half on hour on Google and checking dictionaries, I am none the wiser. So maybe it is scientists who are causing confusion. Does every organism with this factor inevitably become male? I doubt it, but surely that is the implication of its name?

This article offers independent confirmation that genetic determinism is a theoretical non-entity, an invisible stick to beat geneticists with :

"Genetic modification and genetic determinism

David B Resnik and Daniel B Vorhaus

Abstract.

In this article we examine four objections to the genetic modification of human beings: the freedom argument, the giftedness argument, the authenticity argument, and the uniqueness argument. We then demonstrate that each of these arguments against genetic modification assumes a strong version of genetic determinism. Since these strong deterministic assumptions are false, the arguments against genetic modification, which assume and depend upon these assumptions, are therefore unsound. Serious discussion of the morality of genetic modification, and the development of sound science policy, should be driven by arguments that address the actual consequences of genetic modification for individuals and society, not by ones propped up by false or misleading biological assumptions."

I noted 30 days ago that a century ago Goddard came up with the idea of gene-environment correlation, not that anyone took any notice, but that this concept is now current in the behavior genetic literature. It is also influential in the evolutionary literature as Niche Theory, eg Laland Curr Anthrop 2012;53:434. Humans are potent niche constructors, agents in their own evolution.

From Smithsonian.com website:

"Skinner .. wasn’t aiming to take on the central idea in biology for much of the 20th century: genetic determinism, the belief that DNA is the sole blueprint for traits from hair and eye color to athletic ability, personality type and disease risk.

In some sense this interpretation of genetic determinism was always oversimplified. Scientists have long understood that environments shape us in mysterious ways, that nature and nurture are not opposing forces so much as collaborators in the great art of human-making...

So certain was everyone of this basic principle that President Bill Clinton praised the effort to complete the first full reading of the human genome, saying in June 2000 that this achievement would “revolutionize the diagnosis, prevention and treatment of most, if not all human diseases.”"

********************************************************************************************

GD as just defined must be the only central idea in any subject area where no one who propounds this dogma can be identified, either today or in the past! And I can't see what is wrong with Clinton's words, though we are still waiting for the revolution, nor what relevance they have to GD.

If biological determinism is defined as human characteristics and behavior that are programmed by our genetic makeup with zero room for chance or environmental influence, then it seems difficult to imagine such mechanism. Chance is a heavy component in the phylogenetic process leading to human genetic compounds. Environmental influence has an important role in the ontological development of the human brain, due to the need of secondary altriciality at least. For instance, acquisition of language competences is a twofold process, with genetic and environmental interaction. In my opinion, such kind of determinism is a nonsense beyond trivial characteristics. On the other hand, strong deterministic, genetic compounds seem to be present as a part of the interactive process leading to many human characteristics such as language, morals or aesthetics. How they interact with environmental, historical, cultural and personal variables (with free will-like results!) is one of the main challenges for the cognitive neuroscience nowadays.

"biological determinism is defined as human characteristics and behavior that are programmed by our genetic makeup with zero room for chance or environmental influence"

I agree that this is the usual sense of the term, and certainly how it is used by those who dislike or fear genetics.

"strong deterministic, genetic compounds seem to be present as a part of the interactive process leading to many human characteristics"

If the genetic component is present as only part of a process, then it is not deterministic in the sense just defined.

Conclusion: I think "determine" and all its derivatives should be banned from any sensible scientific discussion. Not only does this word cause hopeless linguistic confusion, but it effectively closes down debate, replacing argument with rhetoric.

I agree, dear Pablo.

I quite agree with Pablo and Camilo that there seems to be consensus here on RG, and that comments are getting repetitive. However, I put this question up to engage those people in the media and the many prominent critics of geneticists who insist that neuroscientists believe in biological determinism. In this I have totally failed, so will persist ad nauseam. Here for example is my recent letter to the editor of the New Scientist, probably the most influential science journal in the UK, which has not been published:

"Steven Rose (26 Oct, p 28) invites us to believe that there are those who falsely think that intelligence is genetically determined. Partitioning out the effects of genes and environment is a "question which has obsessed genetic determinists". I have had a question up on ResearchGate since Aug 26th soliciting examples of genetic determinists, either outing themselves or named by others who can point to a clear statement of this idea in their writings. Determine is an ambiguous word and can be used in the weak sense of influence, but in "genetic determinism" is used in the absolute sense of fix. Rose states that it is obvious that intelligence depends on genes, so he uses determine in its inflexible sense. So far I have had no nominations to fit this definition, and conclude that genetic determinism is a figment of the imagination of those who dislike genetics. So can Rose or anyone else please state with documentation who these genetic determinists are (not who we think they are)? "

See also this clip from today's Spiked, a British Internet magazine with a Marxist background focussing on freedom, state control, and science and technology, from a humanist and libertarian viewpoint:

"As a consequence, we have apocalyptic interpretations of environmental science and deterministic presumptions presented by neuroscience....

Having been through a period when we have revealed the limits of religious determinism, now we need to reveal the limits of neurodeterminism.

Bill Durodié is professor and program head, Conflict Analysis & Management Programs, at Royal Roads University, British Columbia, Canada.

This is an edited version of a speech given at the Battle of Ideas festival on Sunday 20 October 2013 at the Barbican Centre in London".

Clearly the spectre of neurodeterminism is alive and kicking, and it is all neuroscientists that it is kicking.

From the front page of today's Guardian:

The London mayor was met with outrage from political rivals after "he controversially suggested some people will struggle to get on in life because of their low IQs". By the same token it is presumably controversial to suggest that some succeed in life because of their high IQ. The Deputy PM, Nick Clegg said "...the danger is if you start taking such a deterministic view of people because they have got a number attached to them, in this case an IQ number, they are not going to rise to the top.., that is complete anathema to everything I've always stood for in politics".

I am sure Clegg would not have got where he is today without a high IQ! So how does he fail so abysmally to grasp the simplest facts about IQ and its distribution in the population. For example, a very large absolute number of those with high IQ are born into the lower classes, though smaller proportionately than for the upper classes. I think it boils down to the low level of scientific literacy and particularly the misunderstanding of the basics of statistics and probability. He may actually have put his finger on the basic fallacy, that to ascribe a number to someone is to brand them with the iron of determinism.

Addendum

According to the Leading Article in The Times, Fri Nov 29, Boris Johnson's assertion that ability varies greatly meant according to the Leader of the Labour Group in the London Assembly, Len Duvall, that Boris was advocating eugenics. So presumably Duvall himself believes in genetic determinism, as otherwise eugenics for IQ is quite pointless, even if thought desirable (which incidentally it was by many prominent left wing intellectuals before the second world war).

More deterministic nonsense, from The Independent Friday Nov 29, p.44:

"It was this book [The Bell Curve] more than any other over the past 20 years that epitomised the bitter rancour over intelligence and IQ. The authors...argued that IQ was largely determined by a person's genes and upbringing, and was a better predictor of financial income and career success than the socioeconomic status of the individual's parents. Boris Johnson was simply expressing the same kind of deterministic, right-wing ideology."

Whatever one thinks of Boris, it was extremely brave of him to bring up the subject at all, and he has been rewarded with a torrent of abuse and vilification on websites of supposedly respectable newspapers. The Bell Curve's main thesis was that low IQ had a pervasive deleterious influence on later life. I cannot see for the life of me what this obvious empirical fact has to do with right-wing ideology, unless it is only rightwingers who read the literature or dare to relay its findings and hence face the vicious public outrage. The book had nothing to do with genes, about which the authors were agnostic.

So what on earth is meant by the middle sentence above? In the last sentence, 'deterministic' is clearly intended in its absolute fixed sense. So how can IQ be 'largely determined'? And if not fully 'determined' by nature and nurture, by what else? I think random or stochastic influences may indeed be relevant, but no one wants to hear that, and I doubt that was what the author had in mind.

My comments here should really be placed in the popular media, but I have found that it is virtually impossible to get such letters published. Also, the media debate is so abusive, childish and uninformed, that it does not seem worth the risk. Thank goodness for RG, so at least the few with open minds can get a handle on the large specialist literature on this topic.

In case anyone is tempted to nominate Richard Dawkins as a proponent of biological deerminism, I have just found out what he said on the topic, in 1982:

http://oidaudeneidos.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/r-dawkins-the-myth-of-genetic-determinism.

Curiously enough, this was written for New Scientist and was also triggered by comments from Steven Rose, as was my response I posted here yesterday. His main point was:

"There is not just one misunderstanding in Rose's remarks, but multiple compound misunderstanding. There is a wanton eagerness to misunderstand".

30 years later the media and the non-scientific establishment are still determined to misstate the dogma of genetic determinism as being a generally-held belief amongst scientists.

We now turn from the coverage of determinism in the 'quality' papers to the Daily Mail, a paper with an appalling reputation for unethical behaviour, political bias and inaccurate, overhyped and hysterical items on science and medicine. However, it had an excellent full-page article on "Scientist who found he'd the Brain of a Psychopath" (Thu Nov 28 2013, p.15). Prof James Fallon concluded: "We are not simply the product of biology, either. Science can only tell us part of the story. Our genes, then, don't determine our fate, but they have the power to send us in a certain evil direction".

According to Harry Mount, before his embarassing discovery, Fallon thought genetics determined your future -- character was down to nature, not nurture. So, if he has been reported correctly, if Fallon had correctly remembered his previous views, and if he had put his views down in writing at the time, then Fallon is the first genetic determinist to be positively identified here.

A further contribution to the non-debate on determinism from another "Quality" paper, Sunday Times Dec 1 2013, p.35. This is an article musing on why British schools have fallen further behind in the PISA international school league table by Tristram Hunt, Shadow Education Secretary and university don "I am an intellectual and cultural historian".

He quotes favorably the education guru Sir Michael Barber..."The opposite beliefs--birth is destiny and either you are intelligent or not--create huge psychological barriers to universal success and are widely held in Atlantic societies". Perhaps the fact that these and many other influential education leaders have failed to grasp the simplest fact about IQ known for over a century, that intelligence is normally distributed, that it is a continuous and not categorical variable, might have something to do with the poor educational outcome of British children. Statistics is another discipline that seem to had no impact on educational thought.

These opposite beliefs "are certainly held by Boris...who in a speech last week was happy to dismiss 16% of "our species" for their low IQ. His is an ugly view of genetic determinism...."

The Prime Minister is in China at present. He would be well advised not to ask the Chinese what they think of level of biological knowledge in the British Educational Establishment.

Please get hold of the special issue of Contemporary Social Science that I edited Volume 7 number 2 June 2012 dealing with "Biologising Social Sciences: Challenging Darwinian and Neuroscience Explanations. My introductory overview is freely available online as well as a podcast. This reviews the growing groundswell of informed scholarship that reveals the fundamental logical and empirical flaws in biological determinism.

"This reviews the growing groundswell of informed scholarship that reveals the fundamental logical and empirical flaws in biological determinism."

As an expert reviewer, perhaps you can supply the names of those scientists who espouse biological determinism. There is no one on RG willing to defend it.

As Frans de Waal points out in the above link, social scientists were and many still are environnmental determinists, assigning zero role to genes. I think they felt so threatened (though quite why I have never understood) and repelled by biology that they invented the opposite pole of biological determinism in order to attack biologists. Incidentally, I disagree strongly with FdW that biology had anything to do with the Nazis, whose ideology was based on new age mysticism. Can any social scientist provide a name of someone who believed in 100% nature?

I have as yet in my personal experience to come across a scientist who utilises the term determinism, or biologically related determinsim. It has made me question, where does determinism begin? Theoretical belief structures stem from schemas formed over time which are based on the link between physiological interaction with the micro (internal cognitive processes) and the macro (external to a person) environments. The conscious and subconscious filtering of information to form schemas which are layered upon existing ones generally seem to link back to the need to be able to predict others and the environment. It seems that there is a basic need to ensure one's holistic (mental, emotional & physiological) survival. Determinsim creates a rigid sense of safety and predictability, alllowing an individual to maintain their homeostasis. To keep that homestatic level means that all input needs to be interpreted in a way that fits already existing schemas. Thus, it could be proposed tht an individual who believes in biological determinism has a very specific set of schemas, or is channelled in a very specific area of biology whereby determinism is the focus, rather like the inheritance of blue versus brown eyes. This reminds me somewhat of the nature vs nurture debate and brings me to the following hypothesis, only two examples provided here:

- On some physiological levels certain anatomical features are pre determined and outweigh other variables.

- On psychological levels certain environmental factors contribute more to psychological states than phsyiological factors.

In other words, I believe there are delicate balances that are multidimensional which determine different outcomes. Perhaps the way to find someone who has the determistic point of view is to examine the way they think....one would need to play detective!

"On some physiological levels certain anatomical features are pre determined and outweigh other variables."

I'm not sure this is ever 100% true. Which feature did you have in mind that is completely pre-set?

If something is predetermined in the absolute sense, then surely it is not a question of weighing other variables, rather that they are completely irrelevant?

For instance if you have parents with two sets of blue eyes, it is likely that your eyes will be blue, thus there is a certain level of pre - set.

"if you have parents with two sets of blue eyes, it is likely that your eyes will be blue"

Not sure about this. See Wikipedia:

"In humans, the inheritance pattern followed by blue eyes is considered similar to that of a recessive trait (in general, eye color inheritance is considered a polygenic trait, meaning that it is controlled by the interactions of several genes, not just one).. In 2008, new research suggested that people with blue eyes have a single common ancestor. Scientists tracked down a genetic mutation that leads to blue eyes.... He added: The genetic switch is located in the gene adjacent to OCA2 and rather than completely turning off the gene, the switch limits its action, which reduces the production of melanin in the iris. In effect, the turned-down switch diluted brown eyes to blue".

Determinism, as used by those who dislike genetics, is certainty, leaving no room for chance. So scientists would be wise to avoid using this word in a probabilistic sense.

Dear Anthony G. Gordon! You wrote: “By determinism I mean the dogma that some human characteristics and behavior are programmed by our biological/genetic makeup, such there is zero room for chance, free will or any environmental influence. I think its meaning is quite clear, unlike so many other concepts that merge into mush or contradiction when discussed in the popular media.” No surprise you couldn’t find anyone living or dead who espouses this narrow rigid belief. I heard about one (Pierre-Simon de Laplace) but he was not biologist. Frankly, this «narrow rigid belief» does not look something sensible even in physics. The world is stochastic in principal. At least, such is the modern scientific belief. As I guess, you mean so called innate or inherent traits as apposed to acquired ones. This old-fashioned terminology is misleading. It hints that some traits are created by environment and some by genes. We may somehow to define what a gene is, but nobody attempted to define what a trait is. My gray hair and my Russian language are my traits. That I am biologist is also my trait. In reality, all traits are acquired, and they all are not inherited, or innate, because, strictly speaking, the fertilized ovum with its chromosomes, organelles, proteins and membranes is the only stuff inherited. All the rest is created de novo. They all are created by organism, not by environment, in the course of ontogenesis. Some “traits” are more or less constant at different environment; others are different at different environment. Yet the latter phenotypes just have more sophisticated genetic equipment. The environmental influences are just meaningful external signals. They are meaningful not in themselves. They are recognized as such by organism. Biological determination may be less complex and more complex. Our inherited ability to speak is supported by the very complex programs: to speak any language that surrounding people speak. If you think that parents teach children you are wrong. Why dogs never learn to speak? Biological determinism is very sophisticated. The term determinism is of course bad. It is too determinate. Biological determinism is clever and flexible. Environment is too stupid to modify organism. If there were no water, no SCUBA gear and waterproof coats would have ever appeared. But to say that these things result from interaction between human beings and water would be clumsy. When it is raining, I open an umbrella. Yet I do not like to think that environment rules my behavior. Any interaction of a living system with environment is of a similar sort: creativity, reason, will and mind, are on the side of living systems. Everything in biology is “biologically determined”.

You want a case of biological determinism. Here you are. Bacterial cell divides into two daughter cells. The daughter cell grows and becomes indistinguishable from the mother cell. Only one cell of 300 daughter cells will have a changed pair of nucleotides. Other cell components are reproduced somewhat less accurately, but if you take into account the improbable complexity of a leaving cell, you easily forgive it for this infinitesimal inaccuracy and recognize it as biologically determined entity. Moreover, those infinitesimal errors are also biologically determined. The achieved precision is just enough for potentially endless existence of the line of identical cells.

One more case of another kind: Take an ecosystem, e.g. freshwater lake. There are different species of bacteria, protists, fungi, water-plants, worms, insects, fishes, frogs. These very different forms live in the same environment for years and years remaining largely the same, sometimes for millions of years. They are “biologically determined”, aren’t they? Of course, they need environment. Nobody and nothing can exist without environment. I am not going to ignore the famous mantra “organism-environment unity”. I just state that the two parts of this unity are ontologically different. The notorious “forming force” of environment should be regarded as a metaphor, and a bad one. Did you ever seen identical human twins? Now image the way from zygote to adult person. OK.

Excellent response Victor, you expressed what I was attempting to express, but in a far more precise manner!

"Take an ecosystem, e.g. freshwater lake. There are different species of bacteria, protists, fungi, water-plants, worms, insects, fishes, frogs. These very different forms live in the same environment for years and years remaining largely the same, sometimes for millions of years. They are “biologically determined”, aren’t they?"

No, I don't think the ecosystem as a whole nor all its constituent species are biologically determined. Biologically dependent yes, but environmentally shaped. In fact some of the species will have evolved, ie changed their genomes under environmental influence. As you say, "Of course, they need environment." Surely any cause that needs any other factor cannot be a determining cause?

"Biological determinism is clever and flexible"

From Wikipedia:

"Biological determinism, sometimes called Genetic determinism, is the idea that each of our behaviors, beliefs, and desires are fixed by our genetic nature."

These two statements look contradictory to me.

Dear Anthony, I have some deadlines to attend to so I will not be able to particpate further, but I do not trust all the information in Wikipedia. I consider terms from Medical Dictionery and the Oxford English Dictionary. It may be better to consider other sources for this. Have a good evening - it is lovely to see you encouraging this debate!

Here is an extract from an article by Kathryn Asbury in Spectator, Oct 17:

"It was predictable that in the thousands of comments that quickly appeared beneath the Guardian article words like ‘eugenics’ were bandied around. I have some sympathy for the anxieties underlying this reaction. We all know that there is an unfortunate history of genetic research being used for ill as well as good. However, it surely makes it even more important to discuss scientific findings in this area objectively and to decide as a society how we want to use them. When barriers go up at the mere mention of the word ‘genetics’ such a discussion isn’t possible. Of course nobody wants to believe that children’s abilities and achievements are determined by their genes, or that the actions of parents and teachers count for nothing. And they don’t have to. The evidence is crystal clear that although genes are a major influence on differences between children they determine nothing. Accepting the influence of genes does not involve accepting genetic determinism and doing so actually flies in the face of the evidence. Behavioural genetics is about probability not prophecy....

The comments beneath the Guardian article, and much of the media follow-up since then, have made it abundantly clear how widespread misunderstanding of genetic influence is."

We now have the ridiculous situation where genetic determinism cannot be debated on RG since no one will or can argue for it, whereas it cannot be discussed at all in the Guardian and most of the media because all we get is hysterical abuse. Asbury's comments, however, did pass unnoticed. Yesterday, Plomin's latest twin study showing high heritability of academic achievement was the front page lead in The Independent, but I could find no mention at all of it in The Guardian. No wonder there is such chaos in the English educational system. I am beginning to wonder if my question here on RG has been a waste of everybody's time.

Correction: I have now found that the latest research was indeed covered in The Guardian, but on the previous day (See website, Wed Dec 11th). The article by Ian Sample, Science Corespondent, included the following quote:

"The big problem is equating genetics with determinism. It's a very powerful [misconception] and difficult to shift," said Reiss".

The 896 [sic] comments were the usual mixture of bile and ignorance, with the exception of Sarah, who valiantly tried to combat all the errors and myths about the article, to little effect apparently.

From timcliffe on ScientificAmerican.com, Oct 8th, 2013:

"Some commenters have babbled (kindest word) about “genetic determinism.” For anyone who may believe those commenters, there are no genetic determinists whatever amongst real scientists who actually research complex behaviors. They ALL know and acknowledge that human behavior is complex and is influenced by all sorts of environmental factors — but also by genes. A certain kind of person doesn’t believe that genes have anything whatever to do with behavior, and that anyone who believes genes do have a role is therefor that mythical animal, a genetic determinist. I am not sure how many of these people are deliberately using the term to tar and feather scientists, and how many of them are simply deluded."

But, as we see in my next post, these views are also common amongst scientists, especially science writers.