The New Genetic Explanation For Behavior

I have been alarmed for quite some time about using genetics to explain human behavior. It is a frightening (in my opinion) new direction for genetic science and (future) manipulation. Geneticists, backed by big pharma I'm sure, are off on a hunt for behavioral indicators in DNA. It started with the search for "mental illness" in DNA. As a sociologist, that makes me nervous as both mental illness and mental health are largely social constructs - as pharmaceutical companies making up diseases and the "cures" for them well know. However, they are moving beyond the issues of mental illness to attempt an explanation of all human behavior and variation.

There are numerous reasons that the attempt to define human beings in terms of DNA might be worrisome. The first, issue is that genetics - and manipulation of genes - seems to be the new "hammer" and the world is a "nail." In and of itself, such an approach is at best short sighted, but in an environment where research is driven by profit, just "identifying" code is not the goal. The money to be made is in manipulating DNA. This means that everything you can "tie" to DNA becomes a possible marketable item to "fix."

Two recent articles point to some of the broader issues of the new biotechnology. First is an article on genetically manipulating fruit flies. The report states that For Fruit Flies, Gene Shift Tilts Sex Orientation. Reportedly, putting one male gene in a female fruit fly, or one female gene in a male fruit fly, transform them into "homosexual" fruit flies. While this may or may not be true, one has to cringe at the idea that something as complex as "sexual orientation" is reducible in every case to a snippet of DNA.

The whole issue is more complex than simple "sexual" behavior. Consistently, the cultural expectations of male and female behavior (gender and gender roles) are assumed to be biologically linked to sex (whether one is biologically male or female (or intersexual). "Masculine" or "feminine" behaviors are culturally coded - not biologically coded. In other words, what is acceptable behavior for males and females varies across cultures - sometimes dramatically. The next problem arises in assuming that those behaviors are then biologically linked to sexual behavior. The argument invites biological legitimation for cultural stereotypes. In this case that all homosexual males are "feminine," and all homosexual females are "masculine." This is certainly not the case. Further, it reifies the cultural definitions of "male" and "female" and legitimates that whole paradigm (including the "naturalness") of heterosexuality.

If you want to believe the simplistic, DNA makes sexual orientation argument then go ahead, but the next example will give many pause.

DNA of Voles May Hint at Why Some Fathers Shirk Duties. Yep, being a "dead beat" Dad is genetic. One has to wonder if that will hold up in court. According to the article, Prairie voles (not to be confused with prairie dogs, have their share of father who don't fulfill their familial responsibilities. Reportedly, researchers found a difference in a section of DNA sample from "good" vo;e fathers versus "bad" vole fathers. Therefore, human males "may" face the same problem (defect?).

Remember, that just describing things does not make "investment" grow. The options for treatment are obvious. One might perform genetic surgery on adults attempting to fix or replace their "errant" genes, or one might do so either in utero, or even in a selective process where conception occurs outside the body, the genes are "fixed" (or "healthy" zygotes are selected) and then implanted.

Many ethical questions aside, this raises the possibility of a eugenics society - and not in to too distant future. The very real concerns that they don't know what the heck they are doing and what the long term implications are, fall by the wayside. Even if their identifications are correct, is their interpretation that a given behavior is "bad" or "undesirable" acceptable? We (and they) don't know more than we do know about the intricacies of the genetic codes. We don't know what shifting one snippet does in relationship to all the others.

How would you feel, if a court started ordering genetic surgery to change homosexuals into heterosexuals, or "bad" fathers into "good" fathers? What about bisexuals? What about children who are not acting "appropriately" in terms of cultural gender expectations? What about those who are "hard" workers versus those who are not? I am positive that someone is looking for a genetic link to that one. Given the overpopulation problem, and the number of "criminals," maybe we should just "weed" out all of the "defectives." Of course, what IS "defective" or "unacceptable" is a shifting definition.

One might think that those who are pushing the "intelligent design" argument would be all over this issue, but there seems to be mostly silence from that camp. After all, the "complexity" of creation is EXACTLY what is being manipulated here by folks with far less vision and understanding the "power" that designed the whole shebang.