… In the past, political scientists were certain that social forces – among them, as the most significant, parents and the immediate environment during childhood – strongly influenced whether people would become conservative or liberal, and whether they would vote or have any relationship with politics or not. “Today we know that this may not be the whole story,” says John Jost, a psychologist at New York University.
An ever-increasing number of studies support the view that biology can exert a significant influence on political beliefs and behaviors. Biological factors such as genes, levels of various hormones, and neurotransmitter systems may partly shape people’s beliefs regarding political issues such as social welfare, immigration, same-sex marriage, and war. And savvy politicians may benefit from such “biological levers” through smart advertising, appropriately targeted at voters’ primal feelings.
Several of these studies linking biology to politics remain controversial. However, the body of evidence is growing, and it may change how people understand their own and others’ beliefs.
“People are proud of their political views,” says John Hibbing, a political scientist at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. “We tend to think that political opinions are the result of rational responses to stimuli in the world around us.” But in reality, a combination of genes and early experiences likely predisposes people to perceive and respond to political issues in specific ways. Recognizing this reality will help the public and politicians develop greater respect for those who hold opposing views.
“I would like to see people be somewhat less dogmatic about their own political beliefs and understand that other people see the world differently,” Hibbing adds.Over the past few decades, there have been numerous studies examining the correlation between genes and disorders such as schizophrenia, depression, and alcoholism, as well as with complex behaviors such as sexual orientation and students’ academic progress. However, until the last decade, this research trend had bypassed the field of political science. Modern politics seemed entirely divorced from basic human biology, and far too recent, almost like a novelty in the history of human evolution, to be considered influenced by genetic factors.
In 1986, Nicholas Martin and his colleagues published a study claiming that genes may influence opinions on various issues, such as abortion, immigration, the death penalty, and pacifism. Martin, a geneticist who now works at the Queensland Institute of Medical Research in Brisbane, Australia, used a classic technique linking behaviors and genetics in his study: comparing findings from genetically identical twins with findings from fraternal twins of the same sex (in the latter case, genetic similarity averages 50% of genes). Identical twins had similar political beliefs more often than fraternal twins. Since twins grow up in the same family environment, Martin’s team suggested that the difference between identical and fraternal twins should be attributed to the genetic similarity of the former [editor’s note: compared to the half-similarity of the latter], and that genetic material plays a significant role in shaping views on social issues.
Martin’s research had obvious implications for political science; however, researchers in this field ignored it. The eugenics movement in the early 20th century and Nazi theories about the biological origin of human differences still kept political scientists at a great distance from (and highly skeptical of) topics such as genetic differences within the human species.
The publication of the study “was like throwing a stone into a well,” says Martin. “There was absolutely no reaction whatsoever. It just sat there, forgotten, for about twenty years.”But in the early 2000s, Hibbing and John Alford, a political scientist at Rice University in Houston, Texas, discovered Martin’s old research. They re-analyzed its data and included similar data from another study on twins’ beliefs in the United States. In 2005, Hibbing and Alford published findings almost identical to those of earlier studies, documenting the strong correlation between genetics and political opinions. They managed to draw the attention of the political science community. But they did not get the reaction they wanted. “They thought we were crazy,” says Hibbing.
However, some researchers, mainly in the United States, picked up the gauntlet and undertook further studies. James Fowler, a political scientist at the University of California, San Diego, used the twin study method to show that voter turnout and political participation also have some genetic predisposition—his research was published in 2008. Peter Hatemi, a political scientist at Pennsylvania State University, had similar results to Alford and Hibbing, studying twins in Australia, Denmark, Sweden, and the United States.
…
These, among other things, were published on October 25, 2012 by the reputable scientific journal Nature, in an article titled “The anatomy of politics” and subtitled “From genes to hormone levels, biology can shape political behavior”.
We assume that if such views had wide publicity in our parts, the reactions of the “public” would be mixed, at least initially. On the one hand, political behaviors (and ideologies) are still considered in our parts as products of (free) will and (free) choice; always, of course, in the service of specific interests, which however are not genetic. On the other hand, the idea of genetic predisposition has already taken root mostly in social beliefs regarding other issues (such as “psychological problems” or sexual orientations); an ideological “that’s just the way it is because that’s how it was made” that thirty years ago, say in the first half of the 1980s, would have been considered scandalous. Even fascist.
Confusion, therefore, may simply be the result of a small historical delay in our parts, in accepting genetic predisposition as a cause for behaviors or phenomena that are still considered sacred grounds of free choice. Perhaps, in the not distant future, a racist immigrant hunter might defend himself by saying “but that’s just how I’m made”; and some volunteer member of a humanitarian organization might respond the same, from their own side.
Before we proceed, however, to a more focused investigation of the “truths” of correlation between genes and political behaviors, it is worth examining a more general issue. Are the ideas of genetic determinism or genetic predisposition (there are notable similarities but also differences between these two, as we will see later) generally vulnerable to criticism? What kind of “scientific foundation” do they actually have?
History; and, perhaps, ideology
Modern genetics as a whole, as a techno-science, recalls as its first hero the Austrian monk (of the Augustinian order) and scientist (with a particular preference for botany) Gregor Johann Mendel, who in the mid-19th century devoted himself to studying crosses between different species of peas. Mendel, however, while he indeed studied and documented certain phenomena of inheritance and phenotype combinations in his peas, had no idea about “genes” and, even less, about DNA. The relevant initial hypotheses and/or discoveries belong to the 1940s (including the first, wartime, half of it) and the 1950s. Modern genetics, therefore, has a history of 70 years, and its more famous heroes are James Watson and Francis Crick, who in 1953 proved (the word proof on the subject enters somewhat more into introductory matters, due to very recent findings) the DNA structure as a double helix. However, time had to pass for the scientific – community – of – biologists to gain some functional understanding of how DNA affects the “life” of cells (: through protein synthesis, which in turn are the “chemical agents” of life). A combination of research, rapid improvement of the necessary means and tools, and an increasingly intense ideological orientation towards the “inner secrets” of life accelerated the “discoveries” (or, perhaps, inventions…) in the last decades of the 20th century – with impressive results from every perspective.
The enthusiasm for the “advances” in genetics, culminating with the announcement of the decoding of human DNA at the beginning of the 21st century (in reality the “decoding” of only a very small portion of it at the time, approximately 3%…), along with the artificial popularization of this enthusiasm, gave rise to a first major wave of beliefs bordering on certainties in the developed societies regarding the genetic origin of everything. Objections and reservations, mainly based on the sordid history of eugenics, were quickly dismissed as negligible. After all, the threat of totalitarian regimes of the Nazi Germany type was nowhere to be seen, while on the contrary, the sun of free-market economy and freedom of choice was shining everywhere. The idea of genetic origin of everything in our species, from eye color to intelligence, and from height and obesity to sexual orientations, was readily accepted because it came bundled with the techno-scientific promise that soon everyone would be able to genetically correct themselves (roughly like repairing a vehicle by “tinkering” with it), and that parents would certainly be able to secure a bright future for their children by preemptively improving their genetic endowment. The ideas of Investment-in-the-Self and Investment-in-the-Offspring (in both cases with the narrowest, that is, capitalist, meaning of the word “investment”) mutually supported and reinforced each other, initially fueled by the wonders of genetic discoveries and their promises; which indicates the role of ideologies in constructing certainties, even when these want to be marketed as “110% scientific.”
The truth is that even the hard core of genetic determinism (and even more intensely, of course, the broader genetic bio-theory) was shaken in the ’70s, and the ’80s, and the ’00s. The certainty of a “one-to-one” correspondence between the X or Y gene (that is, the X or Y base sequence) and A or B behavior, characteristic appearance, etc., was from the outset in the air. Rather, a desired (by genetic technicians and scientists) legitimization of their research programs, rather than anything else. Moreover, such an idea threatened to blow up almost the entire body of other scientific fields and careers, especially in the large family of “humanities.” What meaning would sociology, anthropology, even economics have, if each of our behaviors were genetically predetermined? None! Hundreds of thousands of houses (of scientists) would close if the initial mainstream truth of geneticists prevailed! And, of course, they (as genetic engineers) would become the masters of everything.
What very few people noticed (but among them some key figures for the balance of the post-industrial system) within the ideological flood of genetic determinism was that it would cause the entire legal/disciplinary system to collapse. If any offender or criminal can invoke their genetic predisposition (for which they themselves are not to blame), then what content would remain in their corrective punishment? None! Either they should be exterminated (depending on the weight of their crime and the geneticists’ ability to identify or not the “criminal genes”), or they should be genetically corrected. For the given historical period, from the late 1990s until today, the second option is technically impossible; the first (officially at least, if we are talking about first-world whites, but not necessarily for second-class citizens) is unacceptable.
The combination of techno-scientific failures to directly and broadly associate specific genes with specific behaviors, and the systemic instability that the doctrine of (strict) genetic determinism would cause, pushed hard genetic determinism somewhat to the sidelines. Not into oblivion—“somewhat to the sidelines.” In its place came a new doctrine, more flexible and more “conciliatory”: the doctrine of genetic predisposition.
The doctrine of genetic predisposition (in health matters it is also called genetic vulnerability) leaves room, and where needed plenty of room, for “environmental influence,” however that may be understood: social, cultural, physical environment. It is not only genes that determine (as behaviors, preferences, defects) the individual human beings of our species… It is also their environment… Simply (says the doctrine of genetic predisposition) if the “environment is the same” in cases x, y or z, then the differences among them are due to these or those “genetic characteristics” of each case. Gene such-and-such, which in a different environment would not be expressed or would be expressed differently, manifests itself better or more in the appropriate environment. Consequently, for example, there is genetic predisposition (or genetic vulnerability) for mental problems, mild or (even more so) severe, in such-and-such individuals; however, this predisposition fully manifests itself only with the contribution of environment A or B, while it does not manifest (or only half-manifests) in environment C or D. Similarly for anything else that genetics wants to have its hands in.
If it were a product of deliberate design, the tactical retreat from genetic determinism to genetic predisposition would be clever. Such design did not exist (as far as we can tell); it was simply a matter of correlations. Something that takes nothing away from the advantages of this tactical retreat.
Initially, the idea of genetic determinism remained intact, both as a social, “popular” culture/fantasy and as a techno-scientific field of research and applications. For example, the gene-editing technique called crispr would be impossible (and foolish) if this most “hard” view regarding the correlation between DNA sequences and phenotypes had disappeared1. The same applies to designed mutations in microbes, plants, or animals; although, in those cases, the fact remains that even genetic engineers do not exactly know the medium-to-long-term consequences of their interventions (and they would admit they don’t know, if they were fundamentally honest)2.
In the broader social, “popular” postmodern capitalist culture, the survival of the hegemony of the doctrine “one gene – one outcome” may not fit with current mainstream scientific assumptions, but it leaves the field free for genetic commerce. Something that directly may concern mainly genetic engineers, but indirectly concerns the entire cycle of research legitimization of genetics. And this is not a small thing.
On the other hand, the smoothing out of the sharper (and, literally, the most dangerous for causing instability, at least so far) edges of genetic determinism has left room for scientists in the field to have failures. Or, to not have (or to delay) the successes they promised on top of the initial enthusiasm. Even if the gene for intelligence (or, even better, the gene for life success…) hasn’t been found, geneticists now have a choice of responses to societies (which, ultimately, fund them): from we’re looking, we’re close… to even if we find something, it won’t be the whole story. The fundamental belief in the “centrality” of DNA wasn’t lost because of the doctrine of genetic predisposition, which is statistical and probabilistic more than the average first-world social imaginary could tolerate. And this is due to the fact, as we’ve already mentioned, that the widespread acceptance of geneticism in the form of determinism didn’t happen because it actually had great and undeniable applications to show, but because it fit very well with the obsessions bordering on manias of self-care. Obsessions and/or manias of “self-investment” that have not retreated at all, but simply move in parallel (socio-ideological) “stock exchanges.”
Concessions to environmental influences did not only save a series of scientific branches specializing in its management in its various manifestations. It also gave genetics, as an ideology, the opportunity to opportunistically move between “… ultimately” (the causes are mainly or exclusively genetic) and “… change is possible” (through control and modification of the environment). From hygienic/dietary trends and advice to the degrees of severity in imprisonment, nowhere is genetic determinism completely absent. But it can now also function (that is, serve) as a backup for any “failures” in (human) reform through control and modification of the social (or dietary or …) environment. It is a postmodern (and upgraded) version of traditional pedagogy. If so-and-so conforms, then our strict pedagogy triumphed. If not, “he’s an incorrigible head” – he takes after his grandfather…
However, neuro-techno-scientists are not limited only to passive mapping/reproduction. Researchers from the University of York announced last October the conclusions of their experiment involving “magnetic blocking” of brain centers believed to be related to fear.
In the experiment, participants (humans) wore a helmet emitting magnetic waves directed at a specific area of the cerebral cortex. Only half of them received the actual emission, while the others underwent a placebo treatment. Subsequently, they were asked to answer questions regarding their thoughts on death, their religious beliefs, and their stance toward immigrants… They had answered the same questions before the experiment.
According to Dr. Keise Izuma, the results were impressive. Those who received magnetic stimulation at those specific points showed, in retrospect, 33% less belief in the existence of God or angels, and a 28.5% more positive attitude toward immigrants, even if those immigrants criticized the host country. The neuroscience conclusion was, ultimately, that if the brain’s function in the so-called “fear of death center” is “blocked” or “modified” (using magnetic means), the brain (and the person carrying it…) becomes clearly more liberal…
All this sounds ominous, but at least we still have democracy! And a range of options for how we choose to manage ourselves by “hacking” what is called “consciousness.” Through genetic interventions? Magnetic ones? Or something else yet to come?
The genetics of behavior and twins as (free?) research program
At the back of the scene, where genetic predisposition performs its agile dance, lies, therefore, genetic predetermination; however, this is, let’s say, something like a professional secret of geneticists. A “paper” published in January 2011 in the (American) Journal of Politics3 signed by Peter K. Hatemi and a group of 13 more researchers (psychiatry, medicine and genetics), titled A Genome-Wide Analysis of Liberal and Conservative Political Attitudes, contains, as it should from the perspective of academic correctness, some details about the research on the correlation between genes and political behavior:
The assumption that the transmission of social behaviors and political preferences is purely cultural has been repeatedly challenged over the past 40 years by combined evidence from large studies on adult twins and their relatives… Various data and analytical models using findings from family studies have confirmed the general genetic influence on political preferences, but few studies have attempted to identify the specific parts of the genome responsible for political choices. Here we present the first extensive genetic analysis of Conservative-Liberal bipolar tendencies, from a sample of 13,000 individuals whose DNA was studied, combined with their responses to a 50-item questionnaire. From our research, several [genetic] links [with political views] were identified and some proposals are made for candidate genes for these links.
…
There are two main approaches to identifying genes related to complex traits. The first investigates a priori information suggesting that a specific gene is likely to be associated with a particular trait. The “candidate gene” approach has recently been used for political traits and various genetic markers have been identified using allelic correlation methods – for example, monoamine oxidase and serotonin regarding participation in electoral voting, serotonin for specific positions on social issues, and dopamine for ideology. However, these “candidate gene” studies were feasible because these specific genes had already been associated with traits similar to the political beliefs under study. This observation is significant, because in most studies of complex human traits, “candidate genes” cannot be studied unless there is some kind of broad “related” mapping beforehand.
This is why geneticists tend to use a second approach: systematic research across the entire genome, searching for genes that indicate significant correlation with the trait under study, while also taking into account all confirmed genetic markers… [note: i.e., the established correlations between genes/hormones/behaviors]. Such a broad analysis can identify particular genes or particular gene regions that have not yet been associated with the characteristic under investigation, thus opening new pathways…
Subsequently, after the researchers analyze methodological issues, they present the conclusions of the study (from which we will quote some excerpts, indicatively, since there is also difficult technical terminology):
… The NARG1 gene [note: on chromosome 4] is believed to encode the N-acetyltransferase protein, which is considered important for vascular, hematopoietic, and neurological growth and development. This particular protein appears in high concentrations in the endothelial cells of the testes and eyes, but also in the human brain. NMDA receptors [note: related to the “function” of this specific protein as well as several others] have been found to play an important role in a wide range of physiological, behavioral, and conscious processes in mammals and contribute to transmissions via synapses in various locations of the brain and spinal column… Research in both humans and animals confirms that NMDA receptors are associated with conscious-behavioral state, working memory, behavioral control, social learning, fears, spatial perception, and social interaction, including prosocial, antisocial, and aggressive behaviors.
There are 4 more findings of this kind, however we will not insist on more excerpts; you can sleep peacefully regarding the effectiveness of such research. A handful of genes/substances in correlation with previous research and findings (of broader “significance”) is the best that statistical analysis of 13 or 15 or 20 thousand “cases” can do, starting from their dna map and ending up with questionnaires (regarding opinions, behaviors, etc.), while retroactively mapping in between the family conditions that play the role of “environment” and its “influences” on the issue under investigation.
Twins (always under the condition that they are of the same sex, so that “sex difference” does not enter as a factor/noise) both monozygotic (from the same egg, therefore with the same DNA) and dizygotic (from different eggs, therefore with about half of their DNA the same), are the favorite research field for geneticists. We have already said why, firstly: if it turns out that dizygotic twins have to a greater extent “different opinions” between them (opinions positioned on the conservatism / liberalism dichotomy – we will come to this later) than monozygotic twins (whom studies show do not), and since the environment (the narrow family environment, that is the “mom – dad” environment) can be considered stable and the same for every twin pair, there is a “remainder” that can – conveniently – be attributed somewhere to the genes…4
Then, the genome enters the scene. There, of course, there are some “issues” which, if one looks at them冷静ly, are problematic. Geneticists (and of this particular research) say there are all sorts of things among the approximately 20,000 “active genes” (that is: sequences within DNA that can be translated into the coding of some protein, which, in turn, plays some role in life); and that is a huge number to investigate from scratch, searching for statistical differences that could be related (or not!) to the “different behaviors” under study. Therefore, every new study (such as those concerning political behaviors) must build upon previous ones. Quite simply: either to interpret them differently, or to supplement them.
If the 20,000 “active genes” are a haystack of the “needles in the haystack” type for someone to claim they found what they were looking for, the haystack is thousands of times worse, since these 20,000 “active genes” concern only 2% to 3% of the total human DNA. And the rest? Does it play no role at all?
Here is a scientific announcement on the subject (the emphasis is ours):
… Less than 2% of our genomic DNA directly codes for proteins. Possibly one-third of the remainder corresponds to non-coding sequences within genes, called introns. The regions that remain between genes constitute the majority of our DNA, and many of these represent real dark spots in genomics, since their function remains largely shrouded in mystery. Within these seemingly barren genomic expanses, most pseudogenes are randomly scattered, like rusted car parts, and surprisingly in vast numbers.
With ongoing updates and refinements to the human genome sequence, our research team, along with others in Europe and Japan, has identified over 19,000 pseudogenes, and even more are likely to be discovered. Humans are estimated to possess only about 21,000 protein-coding genes, so it wouldn’t be unlikely for pseudogenes to eventually outnumber their functional counterparts. Their sheer abundance has raised many questions, including how they arose, why there are so many of them, and, if they are truly useless, why they have been maintained in our genome for such a long time.
Magazine scientific american, November 2006, Mark Gerstein, Deyou Zheng, “the real life of pseudogenes”.
…
Recent indirect observations suggesting that not all pseudogenes are completely dead have been startling, and furthermore, we have some indications of the potential “resurrection” of pseudogenes—meaning a dead gene can revert to a live form that produces a functional protein product. Careful sequence comparisons have shown that a cow gene for a certain ribonuclease was a pseudogene for most of its evolutionary history, but recently appears to have been reactivated. In different individuals, subtle variations in pseudogene components have also been observed—for example, some olfactory receptor pseudogenes are ambiguous: in most people they exist as pseudogenes, while in others they are intact, active genes. These anomalies could arise if random mutations reversed the inactivation that originally gave rise to the pseudogene. Could these differences perhaps explain individual variations in the sense of smell? Possibly, although it is still too early to speculate on the extent or significance of this unexpected source of genetic diversity among humans.
If that largely unknown, mysterious, “inactive,” “silent” 97% of the human genome is not “junk” (which is logical—so logical that only specialized technoscientists would prefer to overlook it…), then all current gene associations, partial associations, candidate associations, etc., with all their scientific certainty, are simply false. They are false because they have emerged from “evaluating” (always statistically) a mere 3% of human DNA, completely ignoring what the remaining 97% does. And to make matters worse, other equally scientific studies seriously suggest that genes (or some of them) may not have a fixed function or action, but may change—being influenced by what is called the “environment.” Thus, even genetic predisposition would go to waste: it’s not just that an X gene may (or may not) act in a certain way depending on environmental conditions; the reverse is also true. Its function can change and abandon its “specific way” precisely because of the environment!!!5
Meanwhile, someone reading these pages shouldn’t worry that demonic geneticists are associating genes with choices of specific political parties! One shouldn’t worry whether there’s a “gene for Marxism-Leninism” or a “gene for …PASOK”! No. Geneticists, at least on this matter, are serious. Regarding what they consider political behavior, they have adopted a dichotomy, with conservatism at one end and liberalism at the other. Neither of these refers to any specific political party or program anywhere in the world. A conservative is one who avoids (any kind of) novelties and experiments in life; they don’t like “changes,” especially if they are large and rapid; they are not curious or adventurous; they prefer stability in their daily life, relationships, and in what they ideologically project as their “world”; they are hostile towards different races (hence opposed to migration), different institutions (hence opposed to same-sex marriage), and political changes; additionally, they are more “prone” to using violence against such changes and more hostile (or resentful) towards dialogic approaches to them. A liberal is the opposite of the above. Consequently (and depending on the political and ideological traditions of societies), there could be “right-wing” or/and “left-wing” conservatives, as well as “right-wing” or/and “left-wing” liberals. The “Right-Left” schema, as such, does not concern the correlation of genes and political ideas/behaviors. Ultimately, “political” is called the X or Y social behavior, opinion, or ideology when it is transformed into a vote or some form of active involvement in public affairs…
Much could be said about this political scheme “conservatism – liberalism”. It is a translation of social behaviors (this the geneticists and political scientists do not deny), but it cannot explain how and why someone (thousands, millions of “someones”) can change position (on this bipolar spectrum) during their lifetime; and moreover in any direction whatsoever. How can it be explained that one is “liberal” in their youth and “conservative” in their maturity? How can it be explained that warlords, with their hands in the blood directly or indirectly, repent (within or outside quotation marks) at some point in their lives (usually as soon as they retire…) and become fanatical pacifists? Do genetic mutations occur “en route”?
No. The doctrine of genetic predisposition could push aside the doctrine of genetic determinism (which in many respects shines through in studies such as those we mentioned earlier) and save face. They changed environment both former liberals and former conservatives…. So this role plays its part too.
Of course, the thus understood (by geneticists and their friends) “environment” is metaphysical. Isn’t that, perhaps, also a large number of genetic predispositions? What is it, finally, that is NOT genetic predisposition—not mine, but that of others around me? If I am the environment of the other, what part of this my “self,” which functions as an “environment” for the other, is NOT genetically reducible? My influences from previous others, insofar as they too have a non-genetically reducible part of themselves, that is, their influences from others—others, and so on ad infinitum?
Here, genetic dogmas throw up their hands in despair! Yet, they always turn a blind eye: this infinitely complex environment (whatever it may be, social or natural), whose complete mapping would require a “map” as vast as the environment itself, cannot be used “scientifically.” Constant abstractions are made to render it manageable; thus, for instance, in “psychological problems,” the “social environment” and its influences are narrowed down to the scale of the nuclear family. Therefore, since other scientists, those specializing in environments, cannot grasp their “subject” (that is, whichever environment) with strict scientific accuracy, there is always a need for something more detectable. To shoulder orphaned causes, causes that are excessive, that don’t fit, or that aren’t even on the horizon of traditional sociological and anthropological approaches. More detectable, that is, like some gene.
Does the donkey fly? Not yet, but his case has been taken over by bio-aero-naval engineering…
The closer one approaches, without the biases and interests of the “specialist” scientist, to the theoretical and ideological body of genetics, the more easily one can discern something that is not mysterious, yet is not openly acknowledged: this “scientific branch” (like almost all others) is structured upon foundations of quantitative conceptions. The revelation of the double helix of successive chemical compounds was a tremendous temptation for these conceptions. How many “building blocks,” then, determine life? Ten? Ten million? However many they are, they can be placed on the bench of the bio-anatomist, “measured,” catalogued, “analyzed” to see “what they produce,” cut, stitched, and correlated with similarly catalogued, separated, dissected (phenotypic) characteristics (appearance, behaviors, tastes, etc.) for any individual of any living species.
And if these “bricks” are not such things but beyond what each does and does not do at any given moment they dynamically interact throughout their entire lives? And if these dynamic interactions are triple, within cells, within communities of the same living species, and against whatever “external” environments? And if the “image” of the double helix, the image of a double line that is, with the “independent steps between them” is wrong, as very recent research suggests, which assumes that the “supercoiled” DNA may allow or even cause interactions between what we have so far considered “independent steps between them”?6
Such questions can, of course, arise within “scientific communities,” under the strict condition that they have the recognition of “scientific” credentials. However, when genetics feels, as a science, sufficiently mature, sufficiently valid, and sufficiently secure to extend its reach into “political behaviors” (however these may be understood), then the opposite is permitted triumphantly: political criticism to turn against genetics.
What does it mean for political critique to turn against genetics? The distance between genetic modification of bacteria to produce human insulin and the theories about genetic predisposition to social behaviors is as vast as that between the invention of the electric light bulb and the theory that human relationships are manifestations of electromagnetic attraction and repulsion. The (latter) theories could be considered ridiculous, yet something far more serious is at stake with them: they are expressions of aggressive attempts to achieve ideological (and technical) hegemony within societies. Everything is electromagnetism; or everything is computer science; or everything is genetics: techno-scientific charlatanism distorts (or certainly tries to distort) not only the consciousness of specialists but also the broader social imaginary. And not for free. What is called “science” has, for almost a century now, ceased to be the inspirations and bold ideas of romantics who want to offer something to societies. It is big money, great careers, high status, and many other self-interested motives. Often, it is also purely and simply death: we refer to scientific research for military use—research that is entirely “scientific.”
The work of political critique is, therefore, twofold. On the one hand, to challenge the techno-scientific hegemony over social relations. And on the other, to delegitimize it where necessary, working (political critique) for the control from outside (outside the case-specific “scientific communities”) of the real intentions and the real purposes of the techno-scientists and those who fund them, essentially exploiting the socially produced wealth.
Ziggy Stardust
cyborg #05 – 02/2016
- For a brief comment on the subject, see cyborg no 3, June 2015, p. 50. ↩︎
- To be, in turn, honest, we must acknowledge some clearly positive applications of genetic engineering. Such as, indicatively, the mass (hence cheap) production of human insulin, so essential for diabetics, from genetically modified fungi. ↩︎
- Volume 73, issue 1. ↩︎
- In the mid-2000s, James Fowler, a political scientist at the University of California San Diego, studied the political behaviors of 326 monozygotic and 196 dizygotic twins from Los Angeles, and concluded that genes were responsible for 60% of the difference in voting choice (in his sample…) and the remaining 40% came from environmental influences. Robert Plomin, a behavioral geneticist from London’s King’s College, impressed (apparently…) by Fowler’s research, re-examined the data and concluded that genes were responsible for 40% and not 60% – however, (satisfied apparently) he acknowledged that even 40% is “a lot”. A third specialist, Evan Balaban, from McGill University in Canada, a behavioral neuroscientist, “got involved” in the small dispute between Fowler and Plomin, to argue that twins’ behaviors may be influenced not only by their genetic similarity but also by their “shared life” in the womb. The conclusion? There’s work for all the specialists… ↩︎
- The process, at least in part, is known, and is called methylation. From a chemical point of view, what molecular biologists call methylation is the addition of a methyl group (-CH3) to the carbon of cytosine, one of the 4 bases that make up the DNA molecule. What is of interest here is that, without being able to determine the mechanisms or processes in a strictly deterministic way, molecular biologists have “noticed” that methylation is one of the epigenetic factors, that is, one of the ways of “self-modification” (if we can put it that way) of gene action due to environmental influence. In practice, it turns out (to the great bewilderment of both supporters of genetic determinism and supporters of genetic predisposition) that in life there occurs an (unknown to specialists as to its extent and intensity) reverse process, during which environmental factors cause inactivation of genes, activation of others, or even change in the function of some third ones.
We hold the view that the political (and “ideological” for those who want it) significance of epigenetic factors (which, let us repeat, remain largely unexplored to completely unknown at this moment, yet are now considered given) is very great. Because geneticism, that is, the primacy or/and “ultimately central role” of genes as causes (of behaviors, etc.) is pushed to the sidelines; whereas the unresolved, dynamic, and potentially chaotic dialectical relationship between any animal organism and its environment is once again proven true. ↩︎ - Sarah Harris, a lecturer at the School of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Leeds, who led the research team that conducted, through computers, a simulation based on findings from another team at the American Baylor College of Medicine, stated in October 2015: “When Watson and Crick described the double helix of DNA, they were looking at a tiny segment of the actual genome, just a small twist of the double helix, 12 base pairs long. Our study examined DNA on a somewhat larger scale—several hundreds of pairs—and this moderate improvement in scale provides evidence for a substantial enrichment of our understanding of DNA molecule behavior.” ↩︎