My colleague Diddahally Govindaraju and I published a new paper in Evolution: Education and Outreach: “The elusive associations of nucleotides with human success: evolutionary genetics in education and social policies.” We argue that genomic data, such as what can be learned from GWAS (genome-wide association studies) and PRS (polygenic risk scores) and also the more traditional measure, heritability (h2), do not form a good basis for social policy, education policy, or for making predictions about individuals’ traits relevant to their success in school or social life.
The paper was motivated initially by the views expressed in Katherine Page Harden’s The Genetic Lottery: Why DNA Matters for Social Equality. It looks like our paper is timely: just three days before it appeared in print, so did a new book by Dalton Conley, The Social Genome: The New Science of Nature and Nurture in which PRS are advanced as a way of assessing individuals’ chances of success in education. I am intrigued and a bit disappointed that it bills itself as being about the “new science” of “nature and nurture,” because I think that the nature-nurture dichotomy is a false one. I would think a scientist of Conley’s experience and understanding would hold a similar view. Perhaps Conley seeks to address the distinction as it’s understood by the public at large. I’m looking foward to reading it to see how this and other questions the issue raises are addressed, and to see how it compares to Harden’s book.
In any case—I hope our paper is of interest. Check back soon for more updates.