No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 September 2023
This commentary emphasizes two problem areas mentioned by Burt. First, that within-family designs do not eradicate stratification confounds. Second, that the linear/additive model of genetic causes of form and variation is not supported by recent progress in molecular biology. It concludes with an appeal for a (biologically and psychologically) more realistic model of such causes.
Target article
Challenging the utility of polygenic scores for social science: Environmental confounding, downward causation, and unknown biology
Related commentaries (24)
Beware of the phony horserace between genes and environments
Burt uses a fallacious motte-and-bailey argument to dispute the value of genetics for social science
Cognitive traits are more appropriate for genetic analysis than social outcomes
Complex interactions confound any unitary approach to social phenomena, not just biological ones
Don't miss the chance to reap the fruits of recent advances in behavioral genetics
Downward causation and vertical pleiotropy
Genomics might not be the solution, but epistemic validity remains a challenge in the social sciences
GWASs and polygenic scores inherit all the old problems of heritability estimates
Increasing the use of functional and multimodal genetic data in social science research
Methodological question-begging about the causes of complex social traits
Misguided model of human behavior: Comment on C. H. Burt: “Challenging the utility of polygenic scores for social science…”
Often wrong, sometimes useful: Including polygenic scores in social science research
Polygenic risk scores cannot make their mark on psychiatry without considering epigenetics
Polygenic scores and social science
Polygenic scores ignore development and epigenetics, dramatically reducing their value
Polygenic scores, and the genome-wide association studies they derive from, will have difficulty identifying genes that predispose one to develop a social behavioral trait
Social scientists would do well to steer clear of polygenic scores
Taking a lifespan approach to polygenic scores
The challenges of sociogenomics make it more, not less, worthy of careful and innovative investigation
The failure of gene-centrism
The social stratification of population as a mechanism of downward causation
The value of sociogenomics in understanding genetic evolution in contemporary human populations
Tractable limitations of current polygenic scores do not excuse genetically confounded social science
Vertical pleiotropy explains the heritability of social science traits
Author response
Polygenic scores for social science: Clarification, consensus, and controversy