Volumes of White Noise
The cohort studies discussed by Gavin Francis often confirm what everyone
already knows: that (statistically speaking) a person born into
disadvantageous circumstances is likely to be disadvantaged through life (
*LRB*, 2 June <http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n11/gavin-francis/get-the-placentas>).
The addition of DNA collection and analysis to these studies is a recent
phenomenon, which Francis hopes will deliver a deeper understanding of the
interplay between genes and environment. I suspect this will prove
optimistic. We already know that the genetic contribution to most of the
common chronic diseases – including stroke, type-2 diabetes, heart disease,
osteoporosis, chronic lung disease, chronic kidney disease and dementia –
is surprisingly small. Genetic studies in this area generate great masses
of data and any number of ‘statistically significant’ results. Very often
the effect of a particular genetic variation is small, there is no
plausible explanation, and when different cohorts are examined the results
can’t be reproduced. When genetic thinking is applied to such
hard-to-define traits as personality, behaviour, lawlessness and
intelligence, the danger is that great volumes of white noise will be
generated. Yet, as Jonathan Latham and Allison Wilson have pointed out,
politicians, corporations and researchers are all partial to research into
genetic determinism: politicians because it reduces their responsibility
for ill-health and social disadvantage; corporations because it diverts
blame; and researchers because funding for this type of research is
relatively easy to obtain.
Tim Cundy
University of Auckland
——————————
Robert Paul
