  |
|
|
||||
|
||||||
| Journal of the New Zealand Medical Association,
02-March-2007, Vol 120 No 1250
|
||||||
|
Warrior genes and risk-taking science
Peter Crampton, Chris Parkin
This viewpoint article was prompted by recent claims by Dr
Rod Lea that there is a genetic explanation for negative social and health
statistics for Māori. Dr Lea’s comments were widely reported in the
New Zealand media including, for example, that the monoamine oxidase gene
“goes a long way to explaining some of the problems Māori have.
Obviously, this means they are going to be more aggressive and violent and more
likely to get involved in risk-taking behaviour like
gambling.”1
The claims were made on the back of a small-scale, as yet
unpublished research project. We have concerns about the veracity and ethics of
such extravagant speculation regarding the causality of complex social issues.
In this article, we provide a summary of our ethical concerns regarding the
“warrior gene” line of research.
Decades of medical research have yielded embarrassingly
recurrent examples of unethical science with various populations, for example:
prisoners, POWs, children, the elderly, the intellectually handicapped, and, not
least, many ethnic minorities.2
A widely accepted antidote has been the development of
stringent independent ethical review, given its most powerful impetus in New
Zealand by the Cartwright Report.3 Ethical
principles governing research involving human subjects bear largely on
empowering individual participants and protecting them from risk. However, they
also draw attention to the importance of ensuring that the science is good, that
harm is minimised, and that the research is carried through with cultural and
social responsibility.4
A critically important way in which individual research
participants are protected is through the provision of informed consent: before
taking part in research individuals are made fully aware of the purpose of the
research and its potential harms and benefits. We are seeking reassurance from
Dr Lea that the participants in the research, and the research ethics committee,
were aware that the research included the exploration of hypotheses linking the
“warrior gene” with violent and antisocial behaviour, and that
generalisations were to be made from the research participants to the entire
Māori population despite the lack of evidence for association between the
two (see below).
Good science conforms with canons of rigorous enquiry in
striving to make non-trivial additions to knowledge, and hence becomes
“risk-taking” when its authority is given to views with questionable
credentials. New truths are often hard won. Their validity turns on the extent
and the quality of the empirical data garnered to support them and on the
coherence of the theoretical framework used to make sense of them.
The empirical data thus far indicate the presence of the
MAO-A gene in just over 60% of a (presumably non-random) sample of N=17. Simply
to extrapolate from that not just to a contemporary Māori population of
several hundred thousand but also to past generations of Māori back to the
migrations, is risky in the extreme.
A missing keystone in Dr Lea’s case for involvement of
the MAO-A gene in antisocial behaviour in Māori is the lack of evidence for
association between the two (see accompanying article by Merriman and Cameron;
Risk-taking: behind the warrior gene story; http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/120-1250/2440).
In Caucasian (but not non-white Americans) the gene is
associated with antisocial behaviour in males only against a background of prior
maltreatment. However no association is apparent when the gene is examined in
isolation. Even if the MAO-A data in Caucasian were to be replicated in
Māori males, that does not make the gene the cause of the behaviour. Its
presence might predispose towards such behaviour but only in the context of a
disadvantageous environment. To make the causal claim on the evidence of
association alone is naïve. In this case, the naïvety is masked by the
positive public stereotype of the cutting edge scientist reporting a
breakthrough.
Of special concern is the fact that Dr Lea has made
extravagant claims concerning the “warrior gene” in Māori
despite having himself at times cautioned against risking the naïve leap to
a simplistic causal connection.
On National Radio’s Morning Report he
observed:
“This gene has been
linked to different anti-social and risk-taking behaviours, but the link has
usually been quite weak, and often is only present in association with
non-genetic factors—that is, other factors such as upbringing,
socioeconomic circumstances, other lifestyle
factors.”5
Putting the spotlight on the “warrior gene”,
whose presence by implication we cannot do much about, is to that extent a harm
which can and ought to be minimised. It is harmful because it risks diverting
attention from social and economic conditions which, by contrast, are amenable
to change, no matter how challenging the processes of policy development needed
to effect sustained improvement.
The popular rhetoric of a “warrior gene” offers
what appears to be a ‘simple’ explanation, almost certainly to be
seized upon as such, irrespective of its proponents’ caveats. This harm is
likely to have been amplified by the very high level of media interest following
the death of the Kahui twins and the generally negative portrayal of Māori
in the media.
In such highly charged social and political settings, the
scientist has a particular responsibility for the way in which findings are
disseminated and for ensuring a clear public understanding of the limitations of
the work to date.
A wise man, therefore,
proportions his belief to the evidence.6
Conflict of interest statement: There
are no conflicts of interest.
Author information:
Peter Crampton, Head of Department, Department of Public
Health; Chris Parkin, Senior Teaching Fellow (Medical Ethics),
Department of Primary Health Care and General Practice; Wellington School of
Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Otago, Wellington
Correspondence:
Professor Peter Crampton, Head of Department, Department of Public
Health, Wellington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Otago,
Wellington. Fax (04) 389 5319; email: peter.crampton@otago.ac.nz
References:
|
|
||||
| | Current
issue | Search journal |
Archived issues | Classifieds
| Hotline (free ads) Subscribe | Contribute | Advertise | Contact Us | Copyright | Other Journals |
|