As election season heats up, so does the discussion of what drives that elusive creature, the voter. Political scientist professors Peter K. Hatemi of Penn State University and Rose McDermott of Brown University add their two cents in an article published in Trends in Genetics titled “The genetics of politics.”

The article’s publication was clearly timed to ensure widespread dissemination. A slew of mainstream media outlets cooperated (1,2,3,4), headlining their coverage with exactly the kinds of simplification the authors warn against, including “All politics is genetic”(Examiner.com), “Politics Decided by Genes” (The Australian) and “Genes May Determine How We Vote” (ABC News).

Looking back at previous media stories, Hatemi and McDermott write

Media claims that ‘Researchers find the Liberal Gene’ (Fox News) or that ‘Some Politics May be Etched in the Genes’ (New York Times) serve to both exacerbate and reflect the epistemological divide between the social and life sciences.

Indeed, the authors argue that there is no single “liberal gene,” but rather that thousands of genetic variables combine to influence political preferences. They also argue that genes play no critical role in individuals' political lives until they leave home and the “powerful social pressures” of their families of origin.

In fact, throughout much of the article they are careful to stress the mutual importance of social and genetic factors in determining political identity, arguing that politics are only “in part genetically informed, interacting with the environment in countless and reciprocal ways.”

But Hatemi and McDermott eventually do make an explicit case for the importance of genes to political identity. Their argument largely relies on previously conducted twin studies, the logic of which is that by looking at both identical and fraternal twins, one can determine variation between environmental and genetic causation. But many holes have been poked in this methodology (1, 2, and 3).

And despite their rhetoric that looking to single genes is a simplistic understanding of genetics largely employed by social scientists, they do in fact include a table in their article that lists individual genes as responsible for specific traits. For example, they list MAOA and 5-HTT as the genes that are correlated with voter turnout. This is based on a 2008 study by University of California, San Diego professors James H. Fowler and Christopher T. Dawes, which was later determined to be false. In the words of  Duke University professors in a disparaging press release

The same two genes that Fowler and Dawes claimed would predict voter turnout are also said to predict, according to other recently published studies, alcoholism, Alzheimer's disease, anorexia nervosa, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism, depression, epilepsy, extraversion, insomnia, migraines, narcolepsy, obesity, obsessive compulsive disorder, panic disorder, Parkinson's disease, postpartum depression, restless legs syndrome, premature ejaculation, schizophrenia, smoking, success by professional Wall Street traders, sudden infant death syndrome, suicide, Tourette syndrome, and several hundred other behaviors. They point to a number of studies that attempted to confirm these findings and could not.

And while Hatemi and McDermott mention many other gene-based tools that may become increasingly important in the years to come, such as genetic pathway analysis and next-generation sequencing (but interestingly, not epigenetics), their rehash of previous studies does not provide any particularly new or meaningful way of thinking about the interplay of genetics and political leanings.

Thus, despite the extensive media coverage, the study already feels like old news.

In fact, we saw a remarkably similar round of claims and simplistic headlines four years ago, just in time for the 2008 election season. In February of that year, an article in New Scientist asked “Are political leanings all in the genes?” This, too, was a summary of research (also largely based on twin studies) suggesting that genetics influence our behavioral characteristics, which in turn influence our political preferences. Biopolitical Times contributor Jesse Reynolds covered the article at the time, pointing to the circular logic of asking politically charged questions in an effort to gauge genetic predisposition to political preferences, and expressing concern that, “accepting that genes determine political orientation could cause deepening political apathy.”

I’d like to second this concern – not to discredit genetic research, or to say that genetics and epigenetics play no role at all in our political preferences, but to caution against overly simple interpretations that seem to pop back up no matter how many times they're swatted down.

Hatemi and McDermott, for example, argue that contemporary political attitudes “encompass fundamentally the same issues of reproduction and survival that confronted group life in ancient humans because they involve the same interpersonal traits.” They note that “modern questions about immigration are similar to the primal need to deal with out-groups.” Do they really believe that xenophobic immigration policies today are best understood as a necessary by-product of our evolutionary past?

In one news article about their new study, Hatemi commented that “this research can help the public and policy makers recognize that people see the same thing differently, and at times no amount of yelling or 'proof' will sway them.” He seemed to find this a liberating prospect.

But I can think of far more liberating possibilities. Our country – and any functioning democracy – needs in-depth debate about pressing social issues, not a call to apathy based on a slightly updated version of genetic reductionism.

Previously on Biopolitical Times:

• One gene, two genes; Red genes, blue genes
• Gene of the Week: Will You Vote?
• Gene of the Week — Not!
• Presidential Genes?

Comments

1. Comment by replica designer sunglasses, May 21st, 2013 1:05am

   I like this article!!




2. Comment by online search engine internet marketing services, May 6th, 2013 12:16am

   An impressive political bio can mean the difference between winning elections and losing votes. It tells the voters who you are. Your bio gets your name out to the public and lets them know why they should vote for you. Come election time, voters can choose from several contenders. If you are the best candidate for the job, let yourself stand out from the crowd. Thanks.
   Regards,
   online search engine internet marketing services
   




3. Comment by lafseo, May 6th, 2013 12:15am

   An impressive political bio can mean the difference between winning elections and losing votes. It tells the voters who you are. Your bio gets your name out to the public and lets them know why they should vote for you. Come election time, voters can choose from several contenders. If you are the best candidate for the job, let yourself stand out from the crowd. Thanks.
   Regards,
   online search engine internet marketing services
   




4. Comment by mbt, Apr 19th, 2013 1:46am

   would be against the elite twenty percent population of the axis of evil. According to his ass logic, most countries in the Asia, http://www.mbtukshops.co.uk/ Africa and Latin America, including China and Russia are rogue states, people's population are rubbish. This fully exposed U.S. imperialism against human nature.




5. Comment by Dinkerraiass, Apr 11th, 2013 12:47am

   Rising angle add facial lines, at the same time, elongated face visual sense. With beautiful lips, sexy Catwoman instantly create!Cheap Ray Ban




6. Comment by josses, Apr 8th, 2013 6:35pm

   Ray BanYou can say your article is full of true feelings. Well, failure is inevitable, have the courage to face failure is even more commendable. I believe the gold, there is always the time of flash. Hope you as soon as possible to adjust the attitude, you will find more blue sky
   




7. Comment by Louboutin, Apr 3rd, 2013 5:48pm

   http://www.louboutinukstockists.co.uk/ the Chinese are not suitable for an elected, that was because a lot of people, good and evil people mixed up, hard to avoid to make mistakes.




8. Comment by MBT Shoes, Apr 1st, 2013 7:30am

   http://mbtshoesuksale.blog.co.uk/ loved by his people. Notoriously, many xinke jinshi are coming to ask sun burial string a few secret. Sun burial string only said 1: high rank is not difficult, never part! Really together.




9. Comment by green coffee bean extract, Mar 19th, 2013 4:35am

   Depending on the number of children in the home, the children utilizing in-home care enjoy the greatest amount of interaction with their caregiver, forming a close bond. Thanks.
   green coffee bean extract
   




10. Comment by green coffee bean extract, Mar 19th, 2013 4:33am

    Depending on the number of children in the home, the children utilizing in-home care enjoy the greatest amount of interaction with their caregiver, forming a close bond. Thanks.
    




11. Comment by santa, Mar 15th, 2013 8:36am

    Taking video of the more enjoyable parts of the meeting helps to create positive memories. Assign several people to be unofficial videographers and edit a reel to be shared with other employees, the company and the participants. Thanks.
    Regards,
    resume editing service
    




12. Comment by Living In The Power Of The Spirit, Mar 5th, 2013 1:28am

    Tell Them That I Love Them, witness through the operation of the Holy Spirit the power that they produce on the human soul.