Genetics and Health

51 opinions for Using Genes as an Excuse

• Paul Mernon
  Apr 17, 2006 at 7:43 am

  Good post, Hsien, I agree with you in these points. Genes are like maps - they show us where we are at the start, but we are free to choose where to go. For some genes can be excuse for unwillingness to act, while for others they help to plan their route in life.

• Kristina
  Apr 17, 2006 at 8:20 am

  What you point out here is, I think, one reason (unconscious often) that parents and families shy are unwilling to say that “autism is genetic.” Due to there still being a certain amoung of “stigma” (though this is changing) attached to an autism diagnosis, people too often look for other causes to blame (such as mercury and environmental toxins).

• Hsien Hsien Lei, PhD
  Apr 17, 2006 at 10:45 am

  Paul: That was so poetic!

  Kristina: Yup. Gotta have a scapegoat and genes hit too close to home in that case.

  Was feeling cranky this morning so this just poured out. ;)

• Anthropology.net
  Apr 17, 2006 at 12:24 pm

  No more genetic excuses, please!…

  …

• Deb L
  Apr 18, 2006 at 11:06 am

  Avoiding responsibility for one’s behavior that impacts your life, health, body, family or whatever by blaming it on genetics really irks me too! It’s fun to say things like “He gets that from YOU” to one’s spouse when the kid does something crazy or annoying, but it is another thing to think it’s true. LOL.

  When we can tweak our genes to fix problems, I’d like some 20/20 vision and cavity-resistant teeth please.

• Genetics and Health » Genetics of Alcohol Drinking
  Apr 19, 2006 at 3:57 am

  […] It still comes down to a decision. That’s not to say I don’t believe studies like this aren’t useful. If we can identify genes involved in increasing a person’s susceptibility to addiction, we should find a way to manipulate the genes and dampen their effect. Just don’t use genes as an excuse for a behavior that is partly determined by genes and partly determined by behavior. […]

• Genetics and Health » Genetic Non-Info
  Apr 20, 2006 at 3:02 am

  […] What a waste of web space. So I’m cranky this week. […]

• Hsien Hsien Lei, PhD
  Apr 23, 2006 at 7:16 am

  Deb: You’re so funny. I think you’re definitely headed in the LASIK direction because this isn’t the first you’ve talked about your eyes!

• The Inoculated Mind : Tangled Bank 52
  Apr 26, 2006 at 11:31 am

  […] In the realm of genetics, Mike “Wookie” White demonstrates the effects of environment on the evolution of yeast metabolism, and Ruth Schaffer “The Hutt” describes the newest capabilities in DNA disease diagnostics. Still no price tag on the midichlorian test kit, though. And Hsien-Hsien-”Leia” at Genetics and Health says no to DNA blame! […]

• Walter Brameld IV
  Apr 27, 2006 at 1:58 pm

  “You have a choice to alter how you and your body cope with your genes.”

  But, just as with every aspect of you, your ability and willingness to make such choices are determined by how your genes interact with your environment.

  A genome is a recipe for how to produce an organism in a given environment. Everything about you, how you look, how you think, what you do, are all products of your development, your genes interacting with your environment. The idea of making a decision that goes counter to your genes does not make sense, since that very decision is a result of your genes interacting with your environment throughout your history.

  You can blame your genes and your past. In fact, if you ever do blame yourself, then you are in fact blaming your genes and your past, because “yourself” is the product of your genes and your past.

  That’s not to say there is no hope if you presently have character defects. The tendancy to reflect on your behavior and to improve yourself is, after all, in your genes!

• Hsien Hsien Lei, PhD
  Apr 27, 2006 at 2:03 pm

  Walter: Thanks for your comment! It’s a circular argument, isn’t it? We could be running laps around each other and getting really dizzy. ;) What I would wish for everyone are genes that motivate them to strive for excellence. Now what would it take to activate these genes?

• Walter Brameld IV
  Apr 27, 2006 at 3:39 pm

  “It’s a circular argument, isn’t it?”

  Is it? I don’t think it is. Boiled down, my last comment basically makes these two statements:
  1. Who and what you are today is a product only of your genes and your past experiences.
  2. Point 1 is no reason to despair, because your genes and (for most people) your history equip you with the ability to continue your personal character development.

  In other words, you can make yourself a better person tomorrow than you are today, but the act of making yourself a better person is still the result of your genes.

  “What I would wish for everyone are genes that motivate them to strive for excellence. Now what would it take to activate these genes?”

  Given that we haven’t done this already, I would say it needs more research.

• Hsien Hsien Lei, PhD
  Apr 28, 2006 at 2:30 am

  Walter: I definitely get your point. But I’m not sure I totally agree. Genes are obviously important (otherwise I woudn’t be obsessed about them) but humans have a consciousness or spirit that remains unexplained thus far. I’m not a spiritual person compared to most but have been reading the Dalai Lama’s book, The Universe in a Single Atom, where he makes a strong argument for there being something more than just our physiology governing what and how we think, behave, etc.

  I, for one, would like to think I and my son are not limited by the genes I’ve inherited.

• Walter Brameld IV
  Apr 28, 2006 at 6:34 am

  “…humans have a consciousness or spirit that remains unexplained thus far.”

  Consciousness is unexplained in that we don’t know everything about it yet. But we don’t know nothing about it. Observations of people with brain damage make it clear that the mind arises from the physical structure of and the electrical/chemical activity in the brain. I haven’t read the Dalai Lama’s book, so if you could point me in the direction of any scientific evidence he cites that leads him to his conclusion, I would like to see it.

  “I, for one, would like to think I and my son are not limited by the genes I’ve inherited.”

  Why? Is there something wrong with the genes you have inherited?

  Is the desire to believe something grounds for believing it?

• Hsien Hsien Lei, PhD
  Apr 28, 2006 at 6:59 am

  Walter: I’m not one of those scientists with the hubris to think that science is capable of or ever will be able to explain everything.

  As for the comment about my family’s genes, believe it or not but I was trying to be funny with a bit of modesty thrown in.

• Walter Brameld IV
  Apr 28, 2006 at 8:20 am

  I take it you mean to say that not only is consciousness not currently fully explained by science, but that there is in fact some sort of barrier that will prevent science from ever fully explaining it.

  I thought you would be willing to provide some relevant links to evidence that the Dalai Lama used to draw his conclusions since you said he has a strong argument that there is more to behavior than physiology.

• Hsien Hsien Lei, PhD
  Apr 28, 2006 at 8:24 am

  Walter: It seems you understand what I’m trying to say but disagree. That’s fine.

  And while I am happy to talk to you via comments, I don’t quite have the time to type out the Dalai Lama’s book for you. I’ve linked to it above and would recommend a trip to the library or bookstore.

  All the best.

• Hsien Hsien Lei, PhD
  Apr 28, 2006 at 8:26 am

  Oh, and Walter, since I’m having my one-year anniversary celebration this week, maybe you’ll win the $10 Amazon gift certificate and can get your own copy of the book! Good luck.

• Jeremy Wright
  Apr 28, 2006 at 8:45 am

  Personally I’d love to see the scientific journals which state that there is no such thing as a decision made outside of one’s genes, and that one’s genes and environment are the only things that allow us, limit us or empower us to make decisions.

  THAT is a scientific study I would love to see ;-)

• Hsien Hsien Lei, PhD
  Apr 28, 2006 at 8:51 am

  Jeremy: Maybe Walter can find us a reference.

• Walter Brameld IV
  Apr 28, 2006 at 9:03 am

  The claim that there is some sort of supernatural activity going on when we think is the extraordinary claim. The idea that it is all natural should be the default position until evidence to the contrary comes along. At least, if you are a bright.

• Hsien Hsien Lei, PhD
  Apr 28, 2006 at 9:17 am

  Walter: OK. I concede. I’m not bright at all and have defective genes to boot.

  Oh, wait, doesn’t EVERYBODY have defective genes? So it seems.

• Patrick
  Apr 28, 2006 at 9:21 am

  I think nothing is absolute. Lots of factors play a part and what’s supernatural activity, Walter?

• Hsien Hsien Lei, PhD
  Apr 28, 2006 at 9:29 am

  Patrick: Thanks for the comment! As much as I believe in science and all that we have discovered so far, I also know that there is an infinite number of factors we know nothing about nor even know exist.

• Bald Man
  Apr 28, 2006 at 9:53 am

  On what basis should a naturalistic worldview be the default one?

• Walter Brameld IV
  Apr 28, 2006 at 10:08 am

  “OK. I concede. I’m not bright at all and have defective genes to boot.”

  I think you’re confusing the adjective ‘bright’ (meaning quick-witted or above average intelligence) with the noun ‘bright’ (meaning a person who does not believe in the supernatural).

  “what’s supernatural activity, Walter?”

  Supernatural activity would be something that is caused by something that transcends nature. It cannot be experimented on (since experiments depend on the regularity of nature), it cannot be described by theory or mathematical formula (since it follows no laws or patterns).

  “On what basis should a naturalistic worldview be the default one?”

  On the basis of intellectual integrity. If you don’t check your beliefs against reality, then there is nothing to prevent you from deluding yourself. The very nature of supernatural beliefs prevents them from being checked against reality, so a believer in the supernatural has no protection against self-delusion.

• Jeremy Wright
  Apr 28, 2006 at 10:11 am

  Walter:

  Nobody said the supernatural view should be the default one. In fact, all Hsien said was that there were some things which will likely always remain unexplainable.

  You seem to be railing against some religious ideal here. Which nobody is suggesting.

  What I’m saying is that while genes will guide and provide a template for a person, they are not the sole determining factor (even combined with environment). Effectively what you are proposing is predetermination through genetics.

  Or, to put it less “supernaturally”, you are saying that if we could effectively measure every gene, and their interaction, and the effect of the environment on someone, we could map out their intelligence, interests, emotions, decisions and effectively their whole life.

  Which is, of course, flawed. The brain is presented with choices everyday. Sometimes we make choices which go against our over-riding choices, environment and even our current knowledge of genes. Sometimes we make choices that lean *towards* those genes.

  To simply say (without evidence, I might add, something that you were clamoring for in reference to the Dali Lama) that every decision is obviously based on genes and the physical makeup of someone because anything else isn’t scientific is… Well, that statement in and of itself isn’t scientific.

• Jeremy Wright
  Apr 28, 2006 at 10:14 am

  “I think you’re confusing the adjective ‘bright’ (meaning quick-witted or above average intelligence) with the noun ‘bright’ (meaning a person who does not believe in the supernatural).”

  I’d love to see a source for those two definitions (as well as the characterization of noun v adjective).

  “Supernatural activity would be something that is caused by something that transcends nature. It cannot be experimented on (since experiments depend on the regularity of nature), it cannot be described by theory or mathematical formula (since it follows no laws or patterns).”

  Ah, so quantum mechanics then.

  “On the basis of intellectual integrity.”

  There’s no such thing. By it’s very nature, intellectual integrity is self-effacing and self-destructive. Just as science is. It seeks to constantly disprove. As such, while it on one hand seeks to disprove the supernatural, it is also duty-bound to disprove that there is no supernatural.

  Also, just becuase things aren’t measurable or visibly consistent yet (ahem @ psycohology, quantum physics, etc) doesn’t mean they aren’t scientific, real, etc.

  Also, who in this thread is advocating the supernatural? I mean, you’re the only one stuck on it :)

• Hsien Hsien Lei, PhD
  Apr 28, 2006 at 10:19 am

  Folks, Jeremy is now the new blogger for Genetics and Health. I’m off to do the ironing.

• Walter Brameld IV
  Apr 28, 2006 at 11:01 am

  “I’d love to see a source for those two definitions (as well as the characterization of noun v adjective).”

  For the adjective definition:
  http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bright

  For the noun definition:
  http://the-brights.net/

  As far as the “characterization of noun v adjective,” are you asking me to define noun and adjective?

  “Ah, so quantum mechanics [is supernatural activity] then.”

  No. Quantum physicists regulary perform experiments, and their theories are full of mathematical models.

  “There’s no such thing [as intellectual integrity]. By it’s very nature, intellectual integrity is self-effacing and self-destructive. Just as science is. It seeks to constantly disprove.”

  Saying that intellectual integrity and science are self-destructive because they constantly seek to disprove is like saying that gardening is destructive because all you ever do is kill the weeds.

  “As such, while it on one hand seeks to disprove the supernatural, it is also duty-bound to disprove that there is no supernatural.”

  Science is not “duty-bound to disprove that there is no supernatural” since the idea that there is no supernatural is not a scientific hypothesis to begin with. The supernatural is simply outside of the realm of science.

  “Also, just becuase things aren’t measurable or visibly consistent yet (ahem @ psycohology, quantum physics, etc) doesn’t mean they aren’t scientific, real, etc.”

  Why do you list quantum physics here? Quantum events are measurable and consistent. I think you may be misinterpreting the stochastic nature of quantum mechanics as making it somehow unmeasurable or the probabilities involved somehow inconsistent between experiments.

  As for psychology, what do you mean?

  “Also, who in this thread is advocating the supernatural?”

  Did somebody not make the claim that there is more to human behavior than genes and environment?

• Genetics and Health » Let’s Talk Genetics, Health, and the Supernatural
  Apr 28, 2006 at 11:15 am

  […] I love all your comments even when you disagree with me. In fact, I often learn something new, such as the meaning of the noun “a bright,” which apparently I am not. […]

• Jeremy Wright
  Apr 28, 2006 at 11:46 am

  Yes, there is more to human behaviour than genes and the environment. That does not mean there is only, then, the supernatural that is left.

• Walter Brameld IV
  Apr 28, 2006 at 12:08 pm

  What in the natural world can influence human behavior other than genes and environment?

• Tris Hussey
  Apr 28, 2006 at 1:51 pm

  Coming late into this discussion here …

  “What in the natural world can influence human behavior other than genes and environment?”

  I think that’s the crux of it … we don’t completely understand the whole existense of things. But … culture, for example, isn’t “environment” per se (nature vs nurture) … and culture can certainly overule both genes and environment.

  Also, as the discussion has tended here, there is nothing in science that discounts, eliminates, or disproves something greater than ourselves. Something that is beyond our complete comprehension.

  Really though, this got away from Hsien’s original post.

  Using either genes, culture, or environment as an excuse is just wrong. The system and interactions are so, so complex. How would an African pygmy change if raised with the Inuit of Northern Canada? His culture wouldn’t be there. His genes have been adapted for hot, jungle Africa …

  Genes could make you more likely to be overwieght, but you might be able to counter it. It is a balance between all these factors that makes humans, and all life, exciting and interesting.

• Autism Vox » Genetics, Excuses, and Myths
  Apr 28, 2006 at 2:54 pm

  […] While we do not know exactly what causes autism, there are many theories, from mercury in vaccines to environmental toxins to the discounted “refrigerator mother” theory to genetics. A recent post by Dr. Hsien-Hsien Lei at Genetics and Health on Using Genes as an Excuse prompted me to think about why, in my circle, people have tended to be unwilling to simply say that “autism is genetic.” […]

• Hsien Hsien Lei, PhD
  Apr 28, 2006 at 6:43 pm

  Tris: Thanks for reining us in. I’d sort of lost the plot there for a sec.

• markw
  Apr 29, 2006 at 8:20 am

  I’ve also arrived late to this one -

  Sort of reminds me of that moment in one of my first few meetings at AA when I attempted to put the blame on my father for making me drink. I can definitely relate to “It’s in my genes” being just one more excuse for bad behavior.

  I was reminded very clearly by an oldtimer that my father never once poured any of that booze down my throat for me!

  “What in the natural world can influence human behavior other than genes and environment?”

  Simple - God.

  Unless, that is, you’re like the multitude in the world of PC that thinks discussion of God is unnatural.

  :-)

  A Sober, Clean Day To All,

  Mark

• Hsien Hsien Lei, PhD
  Apr 29, 2006 at 8:32 am

  Mark: Thank you so much for your comment! It is this kind of straightforward, no nonsense thinking that I admire about A Dozen Steps. As you can tell, there are quite a few heathens around here. ;)

• markw
  Apr 29, 2006 at 8:50 am

  You’re very welcome Hsien…

  I have to smile - believe it or not - despite, or in spite of, what they believe, even a heathen has a higher power. Naturally…

  “Have you ever peered out the window and pondered whether you could have created that pine tree?”

  Ah well, I’ve enjoyed this thread. Thank you for the compliment also!

  Mark

• Tris Hussey
  Apr 29, 2006 at 10:37 am

  Here, here Mark! Great response. Even for us Buddhists.

  Created a pine tree … and consider the humble snow flake. Truly amazing.

• The HomelyScientist » Has the smart gene been found? And is this good?
  May 1, 2006 at 10:19 am

  […] While this is good news for the process of understanding the human genetic code (or genome), this raises troubling questions.  Like our channel editor discussed in her post, can genetics be used as an excuse?  If you were tested for this gene and it was determined to be "damaged" could you be tracked into something for people with "lesser intelligence"?  Speaking as someone with a learning disability, and who has worked extremely hard to manage it, I faced being tracked into classes that wouldn’t have me on the honours university track.  It took my parents’ intervention at school to get me into honours classes. […]

• Genetics and Health » Do your genes make you more likely to catch bird flu?
  May 9, 2006 at 12:11 pm

  […] Using genes as an excuse won’t fly with me. […]

• Genetics and Health » Genetically Informed Approach
  Jun 28, 2006 at 4:38 pm

  […] Very thought provoking. Perhaps genes do make good excuses sometimes. […]

• Where’s Jar-Jar? at Another Blasted Weblog
  Jul 9, 2006 at 4:36 pm

  […] Using genes as an excuse […]

• Genetics and Health » MAOA Gene and Neophilia
  Jul 14, 2006 at 11:07 am

  […] Julian Ryall in The Scotsman makes all this much more entertaining by relating genetics to people’s insatiable desire for the latest new gadget. Smells like another excuse to me. […]

• Genetics and Health » Gene Talk #8: Genetic Determinism at Seldo.com
  Jul 24, 2006 at 3:02 am

  […] Short answer: No. Long answer: Check out the heated discussion we had in April. […]

• Genetics and Health » Life Span Determined by More Than Genes
  Aug 31, 2006 at 2:27 pm

  […] If a bus runs me over tomorrow, my genes had nothing to do it. Today’s most e-mailed New York Times article: […]

• Genetics and Health » Genes Involved in Obesity
  Sep 4, 2006 at 7:31 am

  […] On the other hand, Emma Whitelaw from the Queensland Institute of Medical Research isn’t going to be my friend. She won’t let me use genes as an excuse. […]

• Genetics and Health » Genetics and Health in 2006
  Jan 11, 2007 at 10:19 am

  […] April 2006 - Let’s Talk Genetics, Health, and the Supernatural (A rebuttal to one of the most hotly discussed posts ever on Genetics and Health.) […]

• Genetics and Health » Over 200 Genes Linked to Quitting Smoking
  Apr 5, 2007 at 6:54 pm

  […] Christina, what kind of genes do you think have? Actually, never mind. I don’t want you to be using your genes as an excuse. Just quit already!! And that goes for you too, Mr. Homely Scientist […]

• 16id-My Health Mart is an online | Gene Talk #8: Genetic Determinism at Seldo.com
  Aug 30, 2007 at 4:11 pm

  […] answer: Check out the heated discussion we had in […]

Have an opinion? Leave a comment:

• Use this area to discover new blogs and content in the b5media network.
• Beauty & Style
• Business
• Celebrities
• Entertainment
• Health & Wellness
• Lifestyles
• Music
• Sports
• Team Blogs
• Technology
• Travel & Culture
• Video Games

• Social Web
• E-mail