|
Bad Behaviour
By Juliet Tizzard
October 23, 2002
The article first appeared
on www.spiked-online.com
A new report on genes and
behaviour from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics provided
a perfect media moment in which to talk about a fascinating
field of genetic science. Unfortunately, the opportunity was
squandered.
The report, entitled 'Genetics
and Human Behaviour: the ethical context' (1),
is the result of 18 months of consultation, fact-finding and
deliberation. The main bulk of it examines the progress that
behavioural genetics has made in uncovering the contribution
that genes make to intelligence, personality, antisocial behaviour
and sexual orientation.
At the press conference in
London, Professor Terrie Moffitt of the Institute of Psychiatry
summarised the findings. She said that quantitative genetic
studies (those looking for behavioural similarities or differences
between twins and siblings) and molecular genetic studies
(those looking for genes or gene clusters associated with
particular behaviours) carried out to date are unable to tell
us much more than that genes play a role in normal
behaviour.
To what extent genes do play
a role in determining human behaviour and how they do so is
still largely unclear. The report identifies a number of problems
with research so far:
- the difficulty of defining
and measuring behavioural traits;
- the dangers of the misinterpretation
and misapplication of heritability estimates;
- the lack of replicated
findings relating to specific genes that might influence
behaviour.
With such a thorough examination
of the limited findings of behavioural genetics, you might
expect the press coverage surrounding the publication of the
report to concentrate on these issues. But it didn't. BBC
News focused its story about the report's publication on 'Concern
over baby gene selection', while the Daily Telegraph
preferred to summarise it with the headline: 'Call for ban
on designer babies chosen for IQ.'
Both headlines refer to one
of the 20 recommendations made in the report: that embryo
selection for behavioural genetic traits should be prohibited.
It is tempting to put the
flavour of the news coverage on the Nuffield report down to
journalists' obsession with designer babies - an obsession
that has many scouring a lengthy and detailed report for the
one paragraph that mentions embryo selection. But it turns
out that the media focus was an intentional result of how
the Nuffield Council presented its report.
The press release issued by the
Council has as its first line: 'Embryos should not be selected
for behavioural traits such as intelligence on the basis of
genetic information.' (2) Not until much later
in the press release does it say that 'there are currently no
practical applications of research in the genetics of behaviour
within the normal range'.
Given the wording of the press
release, it is no surprise that the newspapers led on the
designer babies angle. Does this focus matter? Yes - for two
reasons.
The Nuffield Council of Bioethics
places great importance on discussing the ethics of various
biotechnological advances before they happen. In the context
of behavioural genetics, the Council is keen to focus on the
ethical issues arising from genetic tests that might be developed
if particular genes are identified as contributing to particular
behaviours. Should parents, for instance, be able to screen
their embryos for intelligence or terminate a pregnancy because
their child will be gay?
Discussing the ethics might
seem a reasonable thing to do. But the report goes much further
than mere discussion: it calls for an outright ban on embryo
screening for behavioural traits. Rather than cautiously exploring
a potential ethical tension, the report sensationalises the
issue and gives it an air of urgency that it doesn't merit.
After all, there is not much
point banning something that is not likely to happen. As a
result, members of the public reading the press coverage could
be forgiven for assuming that if embryo screening for behavioural
traits needs prohibiting, it must already be a reality.
The other problem with the press
release's focus on embryo screening is that it is probably the
only thing that people will remember from a report that considers
so much else, not least the current state of the science of
behavioural genetics. At the press conference, members of the
Nuffield Council expressed concern about a skewed public perception
of behavioural genetics that overestimates the power and influence
of genes. Indeed, one of the report's recommendations is that
'researchers and those who report research have a duty to communicate
findings in a responsible manner'.
But the way in which the report
was published did little to dispel the myth that genes determine
the way we act. In fact, by calling for a ban on embryo screening
for behavioural traits - and by promoting it to the media
- the Nuffield Council has helped to perpetuate this myth.
(1) 'Genes and
human behaviour: the ethical context', Nuffield Council on Bioethics,
September 2002
(2) New
Report tackles controversial research into genes and behaviour,
Press release, 29 September 2002
Juliet Tizzard is editor-in-chief
of BioNews,
a free weekly digest of news in human genetics and assisted
reproduction, where this article was originally published.
She is also a contributor to Designer Babies: Where Should
We Draw the Line? Published by Hodder & Stoughton
and the Institute of Ideas, £5.99.
|
