1 Comment
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
<Diana Rose's avatar

Just read Aftab piece on JAMA v MIA on ‘genetics’. Far too much for proper argument here but It would be good if there was some humility. The most sophisticated writers know that they are struggling in the dark in this domain. There are trillions of synaptic connections in the human brain and gene/SNP expressions and connections are highly malleable or plastic. Nearly everyone has not got too far beyond the” P=G x E” formulation and the aspects of ‘E’ that have been ‘studied’ are predictable and they are political – cannabis use, in utero insults, obstetric complications etc. Probably the only non ‘biologically oriented aspects of ‘E’ that have been examined are urbanicity especially ethnic density. In the domain of ‘heritability’ so-called, for example, regression models, correlations and other ‘elemental’ ones fail to recognise that the brain, body and world are integrally connected and can’t be reduced to ‘components’. MIA and JAMA equally “don’t know what they don’t know” and to position JAMA as the ‘experts’ and MIA as ‘populists’ (not of the positive kind) is not a scientific argument as Awais Aftab well knows. It is simply spin to invoke the Trumps, Bolsonaros, Erdogans etc of this world here and if Aftab doesn’t like ‘connotations’ he should just think about what’s implied by this term ‘populism’. It is far too serious for a start. I am a novice in this domain and claim just the ‘ordinary public interest’ Aftab worries about. I just suggest reading Thomas Osborne and Nikolas Rose forthcoming book The Future of Humanity: Being Human in a Post-Human World.

Madinaction

Expand full comment