DNA - not a sentence

The Publishing House "Mann, Ivanov and Ferber" published a book of Canadian scientist Stephen Heine "DNA is not a sentence. An amazing relationship between you and your genes ”(DNA is not destiny. The Remarkable, Completely Misunderstood Relationship Between You and Your Genes). The author of the book, a professor at the Department of Psychology of the University of British Colombia, is engaged in research in the field of cultural psychology, differences between Western and East Asian cultures, the theory of management of the fear of death.

Another field of scientific interests by Stephen Heine is associated with the problem of genetic determinism in psychology. From his book you can find out how substantiated the ideas that genes determine the features of the character, abilities and behavior of a person. Steven Heine pays particular attention to the question of the presence or absence of intellectual differences between representatives of different nationalities, the possibilities of the genetic foundations of criminal behavior, prospects for genetic human engineering.

The development of genetics in recent decades has contributed not only to progress in the field of medicine, but also by the emergence of many psychological prejudices that attribute almost mystical abilities to our genes. According to the author, these prejudices can lead humanity to racism, sexism and the development of Eugenics, but can also contribute to the growth of tolerance, sympathy and an increase in opportunities for progress. From this book you will learn how these psychological prejudices work, how they make us vulnerable to the massive hype around the genomic revolution and how we can use them more efficiently.

With the permission of the publisher, we publish a fragment of the book.

Heine, Stephen

DNA is not a sentence. An amazing connection between you and your genes / translation from English. D. Romanovsky; Scientific editor A. Lemza. - M.: Mann, Ivanov and Ferber, 2019.

Criminal genes

The Broadway play of 1954 “The Bad Semey” tells the story of a loving and selfless mother named Christine and her wonderful eight -year -old daughter of a kind. But soon it becomes clear: the family is not as innocent as it seems at first glance. Once the girl envied her friend Claude, who received a medal for calligraphy, ahead of her. The clan met with the boy on the pier by the lake, took off the shoes in which she danced the tapeworm, and beat him with steel noses until he gave her a medal. In addition, the girl pushed the friend in the lake and every time he tried to catch on the edge of the pier, beat him on his fingers with the same shoes until he drowned. In a similar way, Christina’s daughter also got rid of other people who caused her inconvenience. At the same time, those around him considered it the sweetest creation. How could a kind of can be capable of such inexpressibly terrible acts? The play gives a completely believable answer: the mother of the girl Christina from early childhood was brought up in a foster family and never saw her biological mother, who, as it turns out, was a serial killer. Apparently, the manic manic genes of Christina jumped through the generation and manifested themselves in a small cute gender. As the play says, “some people are bad seed: they are simply spoiled from birth, and this is not to change” 1.

The play resonates with the eternal question: how can one understand why people sometimes commit monstrous crimes? The most terrible actions are so much beyond the limits of logically explained that we naturally want to focus on the entities of the criminal. The most satisfactory answer to the question was why she committed her terrible crimes was an explanation that there was something in her that rotted to the very ground. It was the malicious essence of the girl that prompted her to commit such actions.

English psychiatrist of the XIX century. Henry Maudley gave a simple explanation: "The villains become such not of their own free will ... but because of their natural inclinations." Such a vision entails a lot of consequences. For example, if the root of evil lies in human nature and bad behavior is not the result of experience, is it possible to prevent crimes at all? Maudley further describes the criminality as “an incurable disease ... The dog eats its vomiting, and the pig will always wallow in the mud ... How can what was formed throughout generations remoded during one life? Can a resident of Ethiopia change your own skin color, and the leopard - get rid of stains? ”2. According to Maudley, the problem of criminals lay in their essence, which did not allow them not to commit atrocities.

No matter how extreme the opinion of Maudley may seem, it was not rare for that era. Criminology was only born at that time thanks to the Italian scientist Cesar Lombroso - a key figure in the history of this science3. Lombroso argued: despite the fact that most crimes are committed by randomly people who fell into adverse conditions, about 40% of the criminals had no other choice - their path was predetermined from birth. The essence of these people is such that they are predisposed to commit crimes. Lombroso devoted most of his career to search for a way to determine this root cause of criminality. He was sure that it could be found if you carefully study the head and face of a person. It is enough to measure different indicators of the skull using a caliper and carefully protocol all the features of the face that give out a hidden disease. For example, Lombroso described rapists as almost always possessing “shining eyes, delicate facial features, as well as swollen lips and centuries. Most of them are dry and rickets, some hunchbacked ”4. If you carefully observe and have a caliper at hand, then you can recognize a born criminal and prevent trouble. Thus, the theory of Lombroso turned the question “ What did he do? "To the question" Who was he? "5. According to this vision of hope for the rehabilitation of people, vicious from birth, does not exist. Only a lifelong conclusion or death penalty can solve the problem.

Much has changed since Lombroso, and researchers are no longer looking for a criminal entity, evaluating the unusual shape of the skull or the swelling of the lips. But to some extent, the idea of ​​a born criminal has been preserved to this day, only tools in the age of genomics are used more advanced than the Lombroso caliper.

There are many attempts to find individual genes responsible for the criminal nature of man. The first clue was given by the situation of an expanded Dutch family with a deep history of criminal behavior. One of her representatives raped his sister. Then in prison, where the man was sent after what happened, hit the warder with a pitchfork. The second member of the family tried to move his boss with a car, and the third, threatening with a knife, forced his sister to undress in front of him. Two more were famous arsonists, and many others were exhibitionists and voyerists. Nevertheless, most of the men from this family had no criminal story7. In 1993, researchers discovered that men with criminal inclinations differed from relatives with an unfinished reputation for the product of one gene-monoaminexidase-A (MAO-A). Aggressive men had a very rare mutation that effectively drowned out the expression of this gene. This led to the accumulation of various neurotransmitters in the brain, which was expressed in hyperactivity and a decrease in self -control. Although this mutation is extremely rare and notable for its destructive effect on the biochemistry of the brain, there are other more common options in the same gene that are also expressed in aggressive behavior.

The most famous study of the relationship between Gene Mao-A and aggression was carried out among the men of New Zealand. The two most common options for this gene were studied. Scientists were looking for a relationship between highly explosive and low -expression variants of the gene and brutal circulation in childhood8. Gene options did not affect the behavior of those who were almost not subjected to him. On the contrary, among the victims of violence in the early years, the indicators of antisocial behavior are higher in people with low expression of MAO-A, than their brothers in misfortune with a high one. A dangerous combination of a certain genetic variant and the history of cruelty in childhood increased the likelihood of aggressive behavior. Such results led to the fact that some christened Mao-a “warrior genome”. As a result, it seems that it is a key, if not the only, cause of aggression. Another more problem is created by the fact that low -expression options for gene are unevenly distributed in the world. This leads to assumptions explaining this fact of ethnic differences in relation to violence. For example, Maori, known for their warlike past, have more problematic Mao-A options than people of European origin. The same applies to African Americans9. Perhaps the differences in the frequency of alleles could explain such a large number of Maori and African Americans in New Zealand and American prisons10.

Nevertheless, there are several significant reasons why the “warrior gene” does not stand behind ethnic differences in crime. Firstly, the relationship of this gene and aggression is unstable and insufficiently strong. This addiction does not affect women at all, and its weak manifestations in men depend on violence experienced in childhood. In addition, one of the subsequent studies conducted in the United States showed: the relationship between a crime against a child and the Mao-A gene was applied only to men of European origin. That is, for men with other roots, such dependence was not found11. Perhaps this gene would be more correct to call the "Genoma of the White Warrior."

However, any labels, such as the “warrior gene”, are extremely problematic. After all, they suggest that specifically this gene is associated with aggression. This is not so, as well as the alleles of other genes are not manifested exclusively in one way. The term "playotropy" means how the only genetic version can affect many different phenotypes. MAO-A extremely playropen: signs and conditions associated with it include Alzheimer's disease, anorexia, autism, body mass index, bone density, chronic fatigue syndrome, depression, extroversion, overstrain, individualism, insomnia, intelligence, memory, neurosis, obesity, openness, persistence, restless legs syndrome, syndrome of restless legs, syndrome of restless legs, syndrome of restless legs, syndrome of restless legs, syndrome schizophrenia, sociophobia, sudden children's death, perception of time and electoral behavior12. Perhaps the best name for this gene will be "a gene of everything except the kitchen sink."

Among other things, focusing on the connection between the Mao-A gene and the higher criminal records among Maori and African Americans compared to New Zealanders and Americans of European origin, we ignore the frequency of Mao-A allele in the rest of the world. Low expression gene variants are not unique to Maori and African Americans. They are often found among other peoples that are not considered aggressive. For example, in Japan, the lowest murder in the world13, but the Japanese are more likely to have low expression alleles Mao-a than in Europeans, African Americans and Maori14. Whatever the satisfactory and intuitively understandable explanation of cultural differences in the level of aggression from the point of view of genes, there are still no direct evidence of this connection.

Reflections on criminal genes

Despite the fact that at the moment many methods of genetic forecasting of aggression are in doubt, it is still useful to think about the question: what if science someday finds significant evidence of the genetic basis of criminality? How do we react by learning about the genetic premises of crime? Will this information affect court sentences?

One possible consequence of determining the cause of criminality in our genes may be that judges will more sympathize with the accused. The leading principle of court decisions is Mens REA, which literally translates as a “guilty mind”. If the genes are perceived as the main cause of aggression, then we can say: the accused could not control himself. From here followed the conclusion about the absence of Mens REA

(criminal intent) at the accused. Indeed, the arguments of the defense from the category “My genes forced me to do this” were used in hundreds of trials with varying success. The very first attempt took place shortly after the results of the study of Gene Mao-A in the Dutch family were published. In 1994, the case of Stephen Mobe, accused of a brutal murder of a pizzeria manager in Georgia, was listed. His lawyers asked for the boobs to genotype, suggesting from the client the same mutation as in the Dutch family. The presence of a mutation could become a mitigating factor that would save him from the death penalty. The judge refused the request, referring to the lack of evidence of the connection of this gene with aggression, so the mobs were not genotyped and executed in 2005. Nevertheless, other judges reacted differently to the arguments regarding genetics. In 2009, in Italy, during the appeal hearing, the Algerian case Abdelmalekia Bayut was reviewed. He was found guilty of the murder of Walter Peres. The motive was that Perez offended Bayut because of the makeup of the eye, which he at that moment wore. The psychiatric report indicated that Bayut had reduced expression of the Mao-A gene. This variation is associated with the manifestations of aggression if violence was experienced in childhood. Having examined this evidence, the judge recognized the study convincing and reduced the Bayut period for year15.

This judge is not the only one who softened the punishment. American scientists conducted a psychological study of almost 200 judges. Their reaction to genetic data included in the hypothetical court case16 was studied. The case was on the model of the crime of Stephen Mobe. Half of the judges presented only a description of the situation of the accused. The rest, in addition to this information, were told about the connection of Alleli Mao-A and aggression and that the accused had a problem allele. As in the Bayuut case, the judges who knew about the connection of Mao-A and aggression scheduled a term of about a year less. They were more often inclined to the conclusion that the accused did not control his actions.

Of course, it is likely that the judges who learned about the research of Gene Mao-A, were more condescending to the defendants only because they were given more information. Perhaps the very fact of any explanation of aggression leads to a reduced perception of causal relationships. My student Benjamin Chang and I studied the reactions of adult Americans to different reasons for aggression17. The subjects were offered to read a fictional story about a student named Patrick. He stabbed the man with whom he quarreled. The description of the crime was identical to all participants. But two thirds of them were provided with additional information about the scientifically sound causes of aggression. One third of the participants learned that the accused had an allele that is associated with aggression. They were informed that people with such a genome are four times more likely to resort to violence than those who do not have it. The second third read that the accused was subjected to severe treatment at an early age. They were also informed that people who survived violence in childhood are four times more prone to aggressive behavior. The last group did not provide any additional information about the potential causes of the defendant’s actions. Then the participants were asked if they considered Patrick’s lawyers justified that the young man was not fully responsible for his actions due to the mental disorder. Those participants who read about the mutated gene Patrick, twice as often agreed with such defense arguments than those who learned about the history of violence in childhood. In addition, those familiar with the information about the problematic allele in more cases than the representatives of the second group, expandedly replied that the student did not control his actions18. It would seem that people willingly forgave Patrick for his genes, but not for life experience. And all because it seems to us that the genes make up our essence.

Does a person really bear less responsibility for his actions if his genes are connected with this? The problem of this argument is that it is difficult to find an action in which the genes would not participate - all our behavior is no coincidence and subject to genetic influence. Or you might think about it in a different vein: there is really a gene option that increases the likelihood that you will make a murder of a person of your gender19. This variation is a chromosome. The people who possess it are men. Based on these data, should we conclude that the Y Cromosome is the cause of murders? And that the owners of this chromosome deserve condescension, because they are not fully responsible for their actions? The philosopher Stephen Morse calls the tendency to forgive a crime for biological reasons for a “fundamental psycho -unit error” 20. The problem of this approach is that it implies the separation of genes from a person. The phrase “my genes made me do it” does not make sense, since there is no “I”, independent of genetic characteristics. It is funny that when it comes to genes, it begins to seem to people that the accused does not fully control his actions.

Genes, presumably, justify poor behavior, but do not forget that essentialism is a stick about the two edges. Thoughts about the genetics of criminality lead people not only to justify crimes, but also to more fear of the accused. Ultimately, if someone's genes are the main cause of his crimes and they will not go anywhere, then what can this person do in the future? Such conclusions are forced to expect that one day the convict will stumble again.

Take, for example, the case of Gary Kossy-the captain of the team of rescuers of New York. In 2005, he was arrested for owning children's pornography. Usually such a crime is punishable by four and a half years of imprisonment. But Kossy Judge Gary Sharp sentenced to six and a half years in prison. According to the judge, for one and a half decades, scientists had to prove that the craving for child pornography is the result of “the gene you were born” and whose influence is “impossible to get rid”. Sharp also stated that “we are what we are born with. This is the only explanation that I can find ... This is what is not amenable to control ”21. As in the case of the Bayut case, the judge saw the main reason in the problematic genes of the accused. Only in this case, instead of being condescending due to reduced control of the defendant, Sharp increased the punishment. After all, the problematic genes of Kossy will force him to continue to violate the law throughout his life. Later, lawyers appealed, referring to the sentencing on the basis of non -existent scientific data, and Kossy softened the punishment.

We found that many agree with the statements of Judge Sharp. The aforementioned study based on the history of Patrick confirmed the strength of both positions, which were two sides of the coin. The participants who read about the genetic cause of Patrick’s attack believed that he not only did not control his actions. In addition, most likely, the young man will again commit a crime in the future. When people think about the genetic causes of criminal inclinations, they simultaneously experience compassion for the criminal as a report to themselves in their actions and the desire to lock him and throw him away before he does something again.

1. See: Anderson, M. (1971). Bad Seed. In S. Richards (ed.), Best Mystery and Suspense Plays of the Modern Theater (p. 597–667). New York, Ny: Dodd, Mead. P. 640.

2. Maudsley, H. (1874). Responsibility in Mental Disease (p. 25, 33). London: Henry S. King.

3. Rafter, N. (2008). The Criminal Brain (p. 65). New York, Ny: New York University Press.

4. See: Lombroso, C. (2006). Criminal Man (M. Gibson & NH RAFTER, Trans.). Durham, NC: Duke University Press. P. 51.

5. Horn, D. (2003). The Criminal Body: Lombroso and the Anatomy of Deviance . New York, Ny: Routledge.

6. Nevertheless, the ratio of width to the height of the face can help predict which hockey players will behave most aggressively (Carre, JM, & McCormick, CM (2008). In Your Face: Facial Metrics Predict Aggresive Behavior in the Laboratory and in Varsity and Professional Hockey Players .

7. Brunner, HG, NELEN, MR, Van Zandvoort, P., Abeling, NG, Van Gennip, AH, Wolters, EC, et al. (1993). X-LINKED BORDERLINE MENTARDION WITH Prominent Behavioral Disturbance: Phenotype, Genetic Localization, and Evidence for Disturbed Monoamine Metabolism. American Journal of Human Genetics , 52, 1032–1039; BRUNNER, HG, NELEN, M., Breakefield, XO, Ropers, HH, & Van Oost, BA (1993). Abnormal Behavior Associated with A Point Mutation in the Structural Gene for Monoamine Oxidase A. Science , 262, 578–580.

8. Caspi, A., McClay, J., Moffitt, Te, Mill, J., Martin, J., Craig, IW, et al. (2002). Role of Genotype in the Cycle of Violence in Maltreed Children. Science , 297, 851–854. Recent meta -analysis confirming the reliability of this conclusion, see: BYRD, Al, & Manuck, SB (2014). Maoa, Childhold Maltreatment and Antisocial Behavior: Metaanalysis of a Gene-Environment Intection. Biological Psychiatry , 75, 9–17.

9. Lea, R., & Chambers, G. (2007). Monoamine Oxidase, Addiction, and the “Warrior” Gene Hypothesis. New Zealand Medical Journal , 120 (1250), 5–10; BeAver, KM, Davis, C., Leavitt, K., Schriger, I., Benson, K., Bhakta, S., et al. (2012). Exploring the Association Between The 2-Repeat Allele of the Maoa Gene Promoter Polymorphism and Psychopathic Personality Traits, Arrests, Incarction, and Lifetime Antisocial Behavior. Personality and Individual Differences , 54, 164–168.

10. Wade, N. (2014). A TROUBLESOME INHERITANCE. New York, Ny: Penguin Press. Stokes, J. (03/05/2007). Scientist Defends "Warrior" Gene. The New Zealand Herald .

11. Widon, CS, & Brzustowicz, LM (2006). Maoa and the “Cycle of Violence”: Childhouse Abuse and Neglect, Maoa Genotype, and Risk for Violent and Antisocial Behavior. Biological Psychiatry , 60, 684–689.

12. List of numerous associations of Gene Maoa see: Charney, E., & English, W. (2012). Candidate Genes and Political Behavior. American Political Science Review , 106,

13. Global Study on Homicide 2013: Trends, Contexts, Data (http://www.unodc.org/documents/pdfs/pdfs/2014_global_homicide_book_web.pdf).

14. Way, BM, & LieBerman, MD (2010). Is the Genetic Contribution to Cultural Differences? Collectivism, Individualism and Genetic Markers of Social Sensitivity. Social and Cognitive Affective Neuroscience , 5, 203–211; Lea, R., & Chambers, G. (2007). Monoamine Oxidase, Addiction, and the “Warrior” Gene Hypothesis. New Zealand Medical Journal, 120 (1250), 5–10.

15. Http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091030/full/news. 2009.1050.html.

16. Aspinwall, LG, Brown, Tr, & Tabery, J. (2012). The Double-Ed Sword: Does Biomechanism Increase or Decrease Judges' Sentencing of Psychopaths? Science , 337 (6096), 846–849.

17. Cheung, by, & Heine, SJ (2015). The Double-Edged Sword of Genetic Accounts of Criminality: Causal Attributions from Genetic Ascriptions Affect Legal Decision-Mapping. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin .

18. Another example of this effect see: Monterosso, J., Royzman, Eb, & Schwartz, B. (2005). Explaining Away Responsibility: Effects of Scientific Explanation On Perceived Culpability. Ethics & Behavior , 15, 139–158.

19. Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1988). Homicide . New York, Ny: Aldine de Gruyter.

20. Morse, SJ (2006). Brain Overclaim Syndrome and Criminal Responsibility: A Diagnostic Note. Ohio state Journal of Criminal Law , 3, 397–412.

21. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. United States of America, Appellee, V. Gary Cossey, Defendant-Appellant. Docket no. 09–5170-CR (http://caslav.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1554381.html).