"Don't feed the bugbears": Moving beyond imagined evils in debates about GWAS of complex human outcomes

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have now begun to identify specific genetic variants that collectively account for non-negligible variance in complex human outcomes, such as educational attainment, reproductive... [ view full abstract ]

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have now begun to identify specific genetic variants that collectively account for non-negligible variance in complex human outcomes, such as educational attainment, reproductive behavior, and mental disease. Like heritability estimates from twin studies, these genetic associations raise empirical questions regarding the biological, psychological, and social mechanisms that link differing gene sequences to diverging life pathways. Searching for mechanisms is necessarily intertwined with resolving questions that interface with both philosophy of science and science communication, such as, what evidence is sufficient to characterize a phenotype as “genetic”? However, progress in understanding the mechanisms linking genetic discoveries and complex phenotypes is impeded by common philosophical bugbears. Bugbears are folklore creatures that are used to scare disobedient children; following Dennett (1984/2015), I use the term here to refer to moral, political, and/or philosophical fears that color scientists’ and non-scientists’ interpretations of GWAS results. I describe common bugbears that lurk in scientific debates about the value of GWAS discovery and in public debates about the value and meaning of genetic research, including the threat of losing control and the threat of being held responsible. I further suggest that focus on these common fears have blinded both scientists and non-scientists to other, potentially undesirable social outcomes that could stem from a misinterpretation of genetic research. I conclude by describing how the search for mechanisms will be aided by no longer feeding the bugbears.