Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T17:11:25.348Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Normative Implications of Biological Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2011

Peter K. Hatemi
Affiliation:
University of Sydney
Rose McDermott
Affiliation:
Brown University

Abstract

One of the concerns that has plagued research on the biological and genetic underpinnings of social behaviors and individual differences is the fear that such information can be used for ill. This fear rests on a foundation of good reason. Early abuses involving the use of selective phrenology and other purportedly “scientific” methods to establish moral hierarchies among races or between sexes have exerted profound and lasting damage on society, as well as affecting later attempts to more productively examine the biological bases of individual difference. And yet, many policies that have focused exclusively on social factors have created equal pain and suffering, although these approaches have rarely fostered as much discussion. However, despite these negative outcomes, biological research can also attack diseases, alleviate suffering, and dispel social myths that wrongfully assign blame to the victim or otherwise oversimplify behavior. Here, we argue for a similar positive valuation of such an approach in political and social research. We concentrate not on the ethics of conducting this research, but rather the ethical need for this research to be conducted.

Type
Features
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andreasen, Nancy, Flaum, M., Swayze, V. II, O'Leary, D. S., Alliger, R., Cohen, G., Ehrhardt, J., and Yuh, W. T.. 1993. “Intelligence and Brain Structure in Normal Individuals.” American Journal of Psychiatry 150: 130–34.Google Scholar
Bateson, Gregory. 1960. “Minimal Requirements for a Theory of Schizophrenia.” Archives of General Psychiatry 2: 477–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bettelheim, Bruno. 1972. The Empty Fortress: Infantile Autism and the Birth of the Self. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Birch, Leann. 1999. “Development of Food Preferences.” Annual Review of Nutrition 19: 4162.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carpenter, Carrie, Wayne, Geoffrey, and Connolly, Goeffrey. 2005. “Designing Cigarettes for Women.” Addiction 100: 837–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Galton, C. J., and Galton, D. J.. 1998. “Francis Galton and Eugenics Today.” Journal of Medical Ethics 24: 99105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galton, D. J. 2005. “Eugenics: Some Lessons from the Past.” Reproductive BioMedicine Online 10 (suppl. 1): 133–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glantz, Stanton, Barnes, Deborah, Bero, Lisa, Hanauer, Peter, and Slade, John. 1995. “Looking through a Keyhole at the Tobacco Industry: The Brown and Williamson Documents.” JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association 274 (3): 219–24. http://www.tobacco.neu.edu/litigation/cases/mn_trial/TE18983.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, Stephen Jay. 1996. Mismeasure of Man. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Gurian, Michael, and Stevens, Kathy. 2007. The Minds of Boys: Saving Our Sons from Falling behind in School and Life. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Ivanovic, Daniza, Leiva, Boris P., Pérez, Hernán T., Olivares, Manuel G., Díaz, Nora S., Urrutia, María Soledad C., Almagià, Atilio F., et al. 2004. “Head Size and Intelligence, Learning, Nutritional Status and Brain Development: Head, IQ, Learning, Nutrition and Brain.” Neuropsychologica 42 (8): 11,118–131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
James, Abigail. 2007. Teaching the Male Brain: How Boys Think, Feel, and Learn in School. New York: Corwin.Google Scholar
Kaminsky, Z. A., Tang, T., Wang, S. C., Ptak, C., Oh, G. H., Wong, A. H., Feldcamp, L. A., et al. 2009. “DNA Methylation Profiles in Monozygotic and Dizygotic Twins.” Nature Genetics 41: 240–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schlosser, Eric. 2001. Fast Food Nation. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
Schulze, Thomas, Fangeraub, Heiner, and Propping, Peter. 2004. “From Degeneration to Genetic Susceptibility, from Eugenics to Genetics, from Bezugsziffer to LOD Score: the History of Psychiatric Genetics.” International Review of Psychiatry 16 (4): 246–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seitz, Aaron, Kim, Robyn, and Shams, Ladan. 2006. “Sound Facilitates Visual Learning.” Current Biology 16 (14): 1,422–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shai, Iris, Schwarzfuchs, Dan, Henkin, Yaakov, Shahar, Danit R., Witkow, Shula, Greenberg, Ilana, Golan, Rachel, et al. 2008. “Weight Loss with a Low-Carbohydrate, Mediterranean, or Low-Fat Diet.” New England Journal of Medicine 359: 229–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, G., and Rahman, Q.. 2005. Born Gay: The Psychobiology of Sex Orientation. London: Peter Owen.Google Scholar
World Health Organization. 2008. Evolution of the Tobacco Industry Positions on Addiction to Nicotine. Geneva: World Health Organization. http://www.who.int/tobacco/publications/IndustIntr_web-ready_FINAL_9789241597265.pdf.Google Scholar