From the interview, “heritability seems to matter greatly in non-scientific or popular scientific discourse” and “…most of these people really didn’t do science so much as advocacy for their views, dressed up with numbers.” This is my experience. If you read books by journalists you may be left with the impression that psychiatry is quackery; talk to sociologists and you may get the impression that psychiatric illnesses are merely social constructs; speak with social workers and you may find a strong bias toward the popular trauma narrative as an explanation for psychosis. I could go on with the biases of psychologists and criminologists as well. I think genetic determinism, mostly in scientists who haven’t stayed current in their field was already covered here. One thing all of these demonstrate is a need for more humility. This is also needed by those on the frontlines who provide social services, healthcare, and justice to those living with these illnesses and caregivers like myself who are too often confronted with ignorant and hurtful viewpoints.
Good grief the intellectual content ratio of these is huge. I wish I had something useful to say about the content, but I'm struggling to process a lot of it. Thanks for the opportunity to struggle!
Thanks. Not an easy read for a non-expert, but worth the effort.
You, Dr. Nivard, do not (of course!) bear the responsibility for correcting the conceptual errors that made their way from genetics into the general public when you were 7. But those errors ("the gene for X") are still very prevalent. *Somebody* might try to correct them in a manner that is widely comprehensible.
Thank you! I'm an epidemiologist studying autism. I frequently encounter misunderstandings, even by scientists, about heritability. Your post here is very enlightening and provides excellent material. The autism situation seems similar to the schizophrenia story you tell here.
Some big issues we see frequently regarding autism include:
1. Heritability does not mean inherited. But apparently most people think it does.
2. Many writers use high heritability estimates to argue that incidence has not increased. But that has the logic backwards, and it's also obviously incorrect.
3. Many vocal advocates conflate genetic studies with eugenics. Eugenics of autism is essentially impossible, as your post shows.
4. Heritability estimates from twin studies rely on many assumptions, including a lack of GxE. But there is no evidence of a lack of GxE. Rather, GxE must play a large role in autism and other disorders.
5. Heritability estimates are applicable to continuous outcomes, not binary categorical outcomes. High quality literature shows that this problem alone causes a large bias towards overestimating heritability.
ya know my dad is a geneticist and this reminds me of asking him anything about genetics.... there’s a defensive or distancing tone here that’s common among geneticists, especially post-WWII. There’s a longstanding discomfort in the field with overstating genetic determinism, partly due to the legacy of eugenics and misuse of genetics in political ideologies.
As a result, some geneticists go out of their way to downplay the explanatory power of genetics, get lost in linguistic and statistical qualifications, sound like they’re always pointing out why everyone else is wrong — but not quite offering a clear alternative. So the tone can feel smug or obstructive: “Everyone else is naïve; we geneticists see the deep complexity — but we can’t give you clear answers.”
He’s right: genetic associations are not equivalent to causes, and they don’t replace thinking about environmental and developmental context. But he’s frustrating because he seems unwilling to say anything firm — even though common sense and observation tell us that many traits are clearly inherited and that dog breeding, twin studies, and family resemblance are all real phenomena. The refusal to give any confident answers feels like intellectual evasion — and it’s why people outside genetics sometimes wonder what the point of the field is. I feel a career in Poundland would make this man happier and it would certainly make me happier if he doesn't come back on the podcast. Thanks Dad as usual
I may be biased in favor of folks who explain complex things without overstating 🙃 Michel is certainly not denying the reality of genetic influence and he is making plenty of firm assertions!
It's not evasiveness it's not overstating what the data shows:
Geneticists are actually guilty of overstating the explanatory power of genes with ambitious candidate gene that all failed to replicate & when gwas & PGS came out there was an avalanche of hype with puff pieces & researchers like Plomin fantasizing of all the possible uses AND THEN it turned out those methods are biased by confounders like popstrat & indirect effects
The reason geneticists aren't giving clear answers & firm stances is because current research isn't there not due to eugenics guilt or to be pretentious
The goal of science isn't to make bold claims it's to arrive at a better understanding of reality & that takes time, caution & patience
Animal breeding & family studies don't tell us much beyond the fact that genes have some sort of influence but to what extent & the actual casual mechanisms of genes are way off in the future
you're right, I am likely dialled a bit high, and do have daddy issues.....and obviously it's complex ..I think it's usual that often we look and don’t find what we hoped for in science...but then we try for better questions. I do think if you’re going on a podcast - especially one aimed at thoughtful people trying to make sense of genetics in the real world - it’s helpful to offer some shape or direction. If there’s no story, maybe the story is why there isn’t one. Or where we’re still looking. Or what kind of story we thought we were going to get, and why it turned out to be more complicated. Genetics is telling interesting stories about evolution, phenotypes, patterns of migration and ancestry. Paleogenetics seeing to support discredited invasion hypotheses through ancient DNA and mitochondrial lines. In my ADHD clinic I’ve been working with raw consumer data — very limited in coverage, of course, but when combined with detailed individual history and phenotype, it’s often surprisingly useful at the individual patient level. In the clinical data there are striking clusters in the women -hypermobility, fatigue, histamine sensitivity, hormonal issues and some of that shows up in the raw data and some doesn't. If you just focus on the DSM ADHD stuff you miss so much information and potential treatment areas.
It’s reasonable to wonder whether some of the shared symptoms we see across psychiatric diagnoses — fatigue, poor sleep, low stress tolerance, sensory overload - might be better understood not as features of distinct "mental illnesses" but as expressions of underlying energy system vulnerabilities. Mitochondrial DNA becomes an interesting place to look due to key role in cellular energy regulation, oxidative stress, and immune signalling — all of which are relevant to brain function. If you start from the phenotype, especially in women, what you often see is a cluster: low energy, disrupted sleep, poor heat/cold tolerance, hormonal sensitivity, sensory sensitivity, and cognitive symptoms like word-finding issues or brain fog. These often track along the maternal line, and may appear in families with high rates of IBS, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue, or anxiety. That points less toward “mental illness” in the traditional sense and more toward systemic sensitivity — possibly mitochondrial in origin. So maybe we move from looking for a simple one-gene story, to a bottom-up narrative. In psychiatry maybe we could begin with the observed symptoms and ask whether variations in mitochondrial efficiency, stress signalling, or immune–mitochondrial interaction could explain why so many patients feel physically depleted and cognitively overloaded — especially under stress? In this light, mtDNA isn’t about diagnosing psychiatric illness, but about reframing part of it as an energy allocation problem.
So my feeling is: if we’re not seeing clear signals in the big population datasets, maybe that means we need to shift how we look. Maybe the story here isn’t “we’ve got nothing,” but “maybe we’re asking the wrong kind of questions.” For example, if fatigue and inflammation are key themes — and if there’s any chance mitochondrial DNA is involved — let’s go and look. That’s a story worth telling. One that says humbly but with enthusiasm, interestingly there was no story so that means we find better questions or look for different things in different ways....So yes maybe the answer to realising that your profession prematurely claimed godlike omnipotence and that was used in some pretty nasty ways by some dreadful people...is not to refuse to state any hypotheses or abandon the search for meaning altogether, but to lose the arrogance and talk about the story of having no story and the interesting search for better questions with the excitement it deserves....I am an outlier in the medical profession in terms of how I like my communication though and I am well aware of that so it's probably me who should go and work in poundland tee hee. I shall let you guys continue your chat in your preferred communication style and conclude by saying Awais I really love and value your stuff so thanks and have a great day y'all
Tough read, but very interesting. As a clinician my takeaway is that this is a lot more complex than the popularizers make it out to be. I see no reason to discard my belief that analytic historical hypothesis for psychopathology are a bunch of hokum, but “it’s just the genes” is clearly just as bad.
From the interview, “heritability seems to matter greatly in non-scientific or popular scientific discourse” and “…most of these people really didn’t do science so much as advocacy for their views, dressed up with numbers.” This is my experience. If you read books by journalists you may be left with the impression that psychiatry is quackery; talk to sociologists and you may get the impression that psychiatric illnesses are merely social constructs; speak with social workers and you may find a strong bias toward the popular trauma narrative as an explanation for psychosis. I could go on with the biases of psychologists and criminologists as well. I think genetic determinism, mostly in scientists who haven’t stayed current in their field was already covered here. One thing all of these demonstrate is a need for more humility. This is also needed by those on the frontlines who provide social services, healthcare, and justice to those living with these illnesses and caregivers like myself who are too often confronted with ignorant and hurtful viewpoints.
Good grief the intellectual content ratio of these is huge. I wish I had something useful to say about the content, but I'm struggling to process a lot of it. Thanks for the opportunity to struggle!
Thanks. Not an easy read for a non-expert, but worth the effort.
You, Dr. Nivard, do not (of course!) bear the responsibility for correcting the conceptual errors that made their way from genetics into the general public when you were 7. But those errors ("the gene for X") are still very prevalent. *Somebody* might try to correct them in a manner that is widely comprehensible.
Thank you! I'm an epidemiologist studying autism. I frequently encounter misunderstandings, even by scientists, about heritability. Your post here is very enlightening and provides excellent material. The autism situation seems similar to the schizophrenia story you tell here.
Some big issues we see frequently regarding autism include:
1. Heritability does not mean inherited. But apparently most people think it does.
2. Many writers use high heritability estimates to argue that incidence has not increased. But that has the logic backwards, and it's also obviously incorrect.
3. Many vocal advocates conflate genetic studies with eugenics. Eugenics of autism is essentially impossible, as your post shows.
4. Heritability estimates from twin studies rely on many assumptions, including a lack of GxE. But there is no evidence of a lack of GxE. Rather, GxE must play a large role in autism and other disorders.
5. Heritability estimates are applicable to continuous outcomes, not binary categorical outcomes. High quality literature shows that this problem alone causes a large bias towards overestimating heritability.
ya know my dad is a geneticist and this reminds me of asking him anything about genetics.... there’s a defensive or distancing tone here that’s common among geneticists, especially post-WWII. There’s a longstanding discomfort in the field with overstating genetic determinism, partly due to the legacy of eugenics and misuse of genetics in political ideologies.
As a result, some geneticists go out of their way to downplay the explanatory power of genetics, get lost in linguistic and statistical qualifications, sound like they’re always pointing out why everyone else is wrong — but not quite offering a clear alternative. So the tone can feel smug or obstructive: “Everyone else is naïve; we geneticists see the deep complexity — but we can’t give you clear answers.”
He’s right: genetic associations are not equivalent to causes, and they don’t replace thinking about environmental and developmental context. But he’s frustrating because he seems unwilling to say anything firm — even though common sense and observation tell us that many traits are clearly inherited and that dog breeding, twin studies, and family resemblance are all real phenomena. The refusal to give any confident answers feels like intellectual evasion — and it’s why people outside genetics sometimes wonder what the point of the field is. I feel a career in Poundland would make this man happier and it would certainly make me happier if he doesn't come back on the podcast. Thanks Dad as usual
I may be biased in favor of folks who explain complex things without overstating 🙃 Michel is certainly not denying the reality of genetic influence and he is making plenty of firm assertions!
It's not evasiveness it's not overstating what the data shows:
Geneticists are actually guilty of overstating the explanatory power of genes with ambitious candidate gene that all failed to replicate & when gwas & PGS came out there was an avalanche of hype with puff pieces & researchers like Plomin fantasizing of all the possible uses AND THEN it turned out those methods are biased by confounders like popstrat & indirect effects
The reason geneticists aren't giving clear answers & firm stances is because current research isn't there not due to eugenics guilt or to be pretentious
The goal of science isn't to make bold claims it's to arrive at a better understanding of reality & that takes time, caution & patience
Animal breeding & family studies don't tell us much beyond the fact that genes have some sort of influence but to what extent & the actual casual mechanisms of genes are way off in the future
you're right, I am likely dialled a bit high, and do have daddy issues.....and obviously it's complex ..I think it's usual that often we look and don’t find what we hoped for in science...but then we try for better questions. I do think if you’re going on a podcast - especially one aimed at thoughtful people trying to make sense of genetics in the real world - it’s helpful to offer some shape or direction. If there’s no story, maybe the story is why there isn’t one. Or where we’re still looking. Or what kind of story we thought we were going to get, and why it turned out to be more complicated. Genetics is telling interesting stories about evolution, phenotypes, patterns of migration and ancestry. Paleogenetics seeing to support discredited invasion hypotheses through ancient DNA and mitochondrial lines. In my ADHD clinic I’ve been working with raw consumer data — very limited in coverage, of course, but when combined with detailed individual history and phenotype, it’s often surprisingly useful at the individual patient level. In the clinical data there are striking clusters in the women -hypermobility, fatigue, histamine sensitivity, hormonal issues and some of that shows up in the raw data and some doesn't. If you just focus on the DSM ADHD stuff you miss so much information and potential treatment areas.
It’s reasonable to wonder whether some of the shared symptoms we see across psychiatric diagnoses — fatigue, poor sleep, low stress tolerance, sensory overload - might be better understood not as features of distinct "mental illnesses" but as expressions of underlying energy system vulnerabilities. Mitochondrial DNA becomes an interesting place to look due to key role in cellular energy regulation, oxidative stress, and immune signalling — all of which are relevant to brain function. If you start from the phenotype, especially in women, what you often see is a cluster: low energy, disrupted sleep, poor heat/cold tolerance, hormonal sensitivity, sensory sensitivity, and cognitive symptoms like word-finding issues or brain fog. These often track along the maternal line, and may appear in families with high rates of IBS, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue, or anxiety. That points less toward “mental illness” in the traditional sense and more toward systemic sensitivity — possibly mitochondrial in origin. So maybe we move from looking for a simple one-gene story, to a bottom-up narrative. In psychiatry maybe we could begin with the observed symptoms and ask whether variations in mitochondrial efficiency, stress signalling, or immune–mitochondrial interaction could explain why so many patients feel physically depleted and cognitively overloaded — especially under stress? In this light, mtDNA isn’t about diagnosing psychiatric illness, but about reframing part of it as an energy allocation problem.
So my feeling is: if we’re not seeing clear signals in the big population datasets, maybe that means we need to shift how we look. Maybe the story here isn’t “we’ve got nothing,” but “maybe we’re asking the wrong kind of questions.” For example, if fatigue and inflammation are key themes — and if there’s any chance mitochondrial DNA is involved — let’s go and look. That’s a story worth telling. One that says humbly but with enthusiasm, interestingly there was no story so that means we find better questions or look for different things in different ways....So yes maybe the answer to realising that your profession prematurely claimed godlike omnipotence and that was used in some pretty nasty ways by some dreadful people...is not to refuse to state any hypotheses or abandon the search for meaning altogether, but to lose the arrogance and talk about the story of having no story and the interesting search for better questions with the excitement it deserves....I am an outlier in the medical profession in terms of how I like my communication though and I am well aware of that so it's probably me who should go and work in poundland tee hee. I shall let you guys continue your chat in your preferred communication style and conclude by saying Awais I really love and value your stuff so thanks and have a great day y'all
PS I bet he hasn't mated with a totally random person on the grounds that genetics probably doesn't contribute anything useful at all....
Tough read, but very interesting. As a clinician my takeaway is that this is a lot more complex than the popularizers make it out to be. I see no reason to discard my belief that analytic historical hypothesis for psychopathology are a bunch of hokum, but “it’s just the genes” is clearly just as bad.