Crime and Genetics - A connection?

As a "science guy" I'd like to think something good could come from this, but all this it has a lot of potential for abuse.

A lot easier of we could just move to precogs to prevent future crime. "Mr. Marks, by mandate of the District of Columbia Precrime Division, I'm placing you under arrest for the future murder of Sarah Marks and Donald Dubin that was to take place today, April 22 at 0800 hours and four minutes."

Didn't some people who wore a bunch of brown shirts say they could separate the good from the bad with "genes"?

There is no genetic definition of crime. Laws are not imprinted in our genes. "Criminal behavior" is determined by a legal authority, not nature.

People, like all other animals, may have personality traits influenced by their genes, in ways we don't fully understand yet. Examples may be aggression, patience, creativity, resourcefulness, etc.

Any scientist who is willing to say there is a direct connection between crime and genes is a fool who is ignoring a multitude of independent factors, free will, and the power of the individual to overcome a given situation. The article and any studies supporting it are merely word games trying to convince people they are inherently better than others. I really hope the motivations behind this "study" are not racism, but my gut tells me otherwise.

All of us have the ability to commit criminal behavior, willingly or unwillingly. We just need to be exposed to the right stresses to do so, and to be willing to accept the circumstances of our actions if society deems our response inappropriate.

^^What b-swell just said. Right on the nose. One addition.

The article and any studies supporting it are merely word games trying to convince people they are inherently better than others.

Or trying to help defense attorneys get their clients an acquittal on the grounds of "it's not his fault...it was programmed in his genes."

Bull. Shit.

I expected those responses. Typical. Ignore the science.

The pharmaceutical industry needs to develop a pill for the millions of troubled teenagers, who are already prone to commit crimes, and people already probation, so this "crime gene" can be turned off, or minimized.

^^ I thought that was called weed?

To be fair holland, there is no science here. I am a man of logic and science myself, and this article reaks of the standard sensationalism that our media is guilty of in this day and age. One part that stands out to me is this:

"Researchers estimate that at least 100 studies have shown that genes play a role in crimes."

Yet the article doesn't give you anymore information about where to look at these studies to draw a conclusion for yourself. For all we know one of the study found that there is a gene that might have a chance to make someone a little bit more hostile than some other people, and the NYT ran with it and made this article. I would like to look at the studies myself.

Wonder how many millions of our tax dollars went in to the study that came up with this horse crap?
Sounds like a new way to try and avoid placing the blame for crime on the ones that deserve it, the criminals.

I expected those responses. Typical. Ignore the science.

Instead of being huffy, why don't you address brainswell's excellent points:

"There is no genetic definition of crime. Laws are not imprinted in our genes. "Criminal behavior" is determined by a legal authority, not nature."

"Any scientist who is willing to say there is a direct connection between crime and genes is a fool who is ignoring a multitude of independent factors, free will, and the power of the individual to overcome a given situation."

What if I am predisposed to kill my wife if she mocks me or defames Allah (the famous "honor killing")? Here I'm a criminal. In parts of the Muslim world, I'm a defender of the faith subject to no punishment. How do our "genes" determine man-made authority over ourselves or our "crimes"? If I speak blasphemy against Allah here, it's free speech. In Saudi Arabia, I'm put to death for my "crime". We may have traits that are part of our DNA, but assigning "crime" (a purely man-made and fungible concept) to genes is really, really stretching things.

Dr. Beaver's CV indicates he is quite productive in the academic world, an author or co-author on numerous papers and has presented at many conferences. Perhaps he answers these questions in one of his publications....although I think his CV may be a little inflated in his (successful) quest to get tenure. Nonetheless, while I appreciate his pedigree, there is nothing "ignorant" about hearing his premise, reading his paper (which I did), and not accepting his conclusions. In fact, in the publication process, you'll find quite often that academics have quite blunt disagreements with many things. Are those that disagree also "ignoring the science"? Of course not.

Just because it is "science" doesn't mean it's always right. Not by a long shot. Study methodology, statistical "number-crunching" of raw data, and the researcher's own biases or beliefs can influence any study to a very high degree. Just because it is published doesn't mean "this is it!" It only means Dr. Beaver found a journal willing to publish his work--it doesn't indicate truth, nor conclusiveness.

To accuse those of us on this board of "ignoring" science is absurd. We have every right to be skeptical of this area and every other area of "science"...especially an area so new and influenced by so many variables that a study or a group of studies cannot possibly be seen as "the answer".

Little has been said about the study's "switch-flipping" caveat. What sorts of things "flip a switch"?

IMO: Poor parenting, lack of good role models, poverty, being the victim of childhood abuse, lack of a good education, lack of self-esteem, and other familial-environmental-psychological factors that occur in and around the home, are all likely "switch-flippers." In these instances, science simply could not discern whether a person's criminal behavior resulted from their DNA or from their familial environment.

Does the study discern between types of crimes? Because different crimes are often motivated by different things. There are anger crimes -- physical assault, for example -- where perhaps science might find a genetic link between extra testosterone or something that is inherited. On the other hand, if you see your dad beat up your mom, you get the message that violence is acceptable.

There are crimes of stupidity -- driving drunk, for example, and I suppose science could somewhat show that levels of intelligence can be DNA-related. But on the other hand, if one of your parents drives drunk when you're at an impressionable age, you might think of it as no big deal.

And there are crimes of plain thuggery -- robbing a convenience store or gunning someone down on the street. It is irresponsible science to suggest that someone is genetically predisposed to shove a gun in someone else's face and demand cash, regardless of how they are raised or the environment they live in. Moreover, it's entirely unbelievable.

When you start mixing these crimes -- i.e. the son of a man who beat his wife, himself robs convenience stores -- the science becomes even murkier because these crimes are motivated differently.

And last, if you believe this study, then you'd have to believe that DNA is mostly responsible for ALL of our actions, not just our likelihood to commit crimes. "I cheat on my wife because my dad cheated on my mom." "I flunked out of college because my mom flunked out of college." "I can't hold a job and neither can my siblings -- we must be genetically predisposed!" Ridiculous.

People commit crimes -- OK 99 percent of them -- because they think said crimes are acceptable. Social mores are not genetic, they are learned. Just like we learn to say "please" and "thank you," or to wait our turn in line. You can't tell me that a rude little child who doesn't say "please" and "thank you" is genetically predisposed to be a brat; it's because his parents don't demand acceptable behavior.

We have every right to be skeptical of this area and every other area of "science"...especially an area so new and influenced by so many variables that a study or a group of studies cannot possibly be seen as "the answer". - Unless it's man made warming, the only unquestionable science and the researchers that don't agree are 150% funded by The Tea Party.

On Nov 28th 1975 News Week produced a article by well documented scientists title "The Cooling World" where we would be all stuck in a Ice Age by now. Oh yeah and the great acid rain scare of the late 70's & 80's:

In 1980, the EPA declared that acid rain had acidified lakes in the northeastern United States a hundredfold since 1940, and the National Academy of Sciences predicted an "aquatic silent spring" by 1990, declaring in 1981 that the nation's number of acid-dead lakes would more than double by 1990.

In response to these concerns, Congress in 1980 commissioned an interagency governmental study — NAPAP (National Acid Precipitation Assessment Project) — to document the damage acid rain was causing to lakes, rivers and streams, aquatic life, forests, crops, and buildings.

NAPAP's 1987 Interim Report:

The assessment concluded that acid rain was not damaging forests, did not hurt crops, and caused no measurable health problems. The report also concluded that acid rain helped acidify only a fraction of Northeastern lakes and that the number of acid lakes had not increased since 1980. The assessment also agreed that acid rain hampered visibility in the eastern United States.

The report ignited a firestorm of protest. Rep. James Scheuer (D-NY), chairman of the House Subcommittee on Natural Resources, Agriculture Research, and the Environment, said the assessment was "intellectually dishonest" and badgered NAPAP witnesses before his committee. Environmentalists belittled the document because it came from the Reagan administration. They were especially angry at J. Lawrence Kulp, whom Reagan had appointed NAPAP director.

Scientists, however, generally endorsed the study. Documents from the International Conference on Acid Precipitation in 1988 show participants agreed with most of NAPAP's conclusions almost unanimously. In fact, the scientists from Canada agreed with Krug on the important watershed acidification theory, which was partly at odds with the Interim Assessment. In other words, NAPAP's conclusions were scientifically correct, if not politically correct.

All hail the all knowing science kings!

Nice try Holland on trying to have the conversation. There are simple too many straw men out there for this group to have a serious conversation. I mean News Week published an article 35 years ago about the Earth cooling and it snowed last winter, what more proof would you need to have to show that scientist are wrong about global warming. So they must be wrong about everything else too...

ROFL MrG, great way of dodging the topic. The point I was trying to illustrate is that subjective science is just like everything else, we choose who and what we take for fact. I forgot science was right about earth being the center of the universe, the world being flat, the acid rain study, the new ice age study. My whole life I've heard apocalyptic weather "science" while watching Al Gore spit lies in a "documentary". I heard end times gloom and doom 30 years ago, where it at. I remember a PBS special telling me I would be melting in today's rain showers. And that weather would turn our cities into escape from New York.

Study on unproven / unsupported gene "science" = preposterous!

Study on unproven / unsupported climate "science" = People will follow it to a false grave and F you who don't follow the herd!

This is the danger in basing everything you know in subjective science, it's only right until the next subjective scientist comes along and tells you it's wrong. So if enough people get on this Dr's team, all of you all knowing science types are fine with rounding up those of us who have the bad genes? MrG believes you should never question science?

As much as I’d like to debate global warming with you, I won’t further hijack Holland’s thread.

Holland, as for certain genes leading to bad behavior, I find the science interesting and a ton of potential for abuse. That said, it would be cool if some day we could do gene therapy for alcoholism or the predisposition of criminal behavior or an increased likelihood of cancer.

what more proof would you need to have to show that scientist are wrong about global warming. So they must be wrong about everything else too...

I responded to holland's post and repost, explained why I (and brainswell, I believe--I'll let him speak for himself though) question this study, and added that everyone has the right to question or review the article and accept or reject the research and analysis. Dr. Beaver (why, oh why, did I not use that name when I was on radio) has his research agenda, and while I agree it is interesting, I believe it cannot stand up to scrutiny due to the massive amount of variables that cause humans to act in certain ways at different times in an infinite number of situations with their own variables.

I don't deny that it should continue to be debated--but this researcher's opinion is not the word of 100% certainty on this issue.

Scientists are not wrong about "everything else too", but their pronouncements are not always correct either, especially in emerging fields such as genetics. Acknowledging this does not make science something bad or those who say "hey, science gets it wrong sometimes" a bunch of creationist kooks. It just means science is as good as we humans make it, right? And humans are fallible. For example:

“The earth’s crust does not move”- 19th through early 20th century accepted geological science.

“The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives.” — Admiral William Leahy, U.S. Atomic Bomb Project

“That virus is a pussycat.” — Dr. Peter Duesberg, molecular-biology professor at U.C. Berkeley, on HIV, 1988

“I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.” — Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943

“Radio has no future. Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. X-rays will prove to be a hoax.” — William Thomson, Lord Kelvin, British scientist, 1899.

“There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.” — Albert Einstein, 1932

“Space travel is bunk.” — Sir Harold Spencer Jones, Astronomer Royal of the UK, 1957 (two weeks later Sputnik orbited the Earth).

“If I had thought about it, I wouldn’t have done the experiment. The literature was full of examples that said you can’t do this.” — Spencer Silver on the work that led to the unique adhesives for 3-M “Post-It” Notepads.

“Stomach ulcers are caused by stress” — accepted medical diagnosis, until Dr. Marshall proved that H. pylori caused gastric inflammation by deliberately infecting himself with the bacterium.

My hope was/is that people could look objectively at scienctific studies and not let their preconceived prejudices discount the findings or cause them to reject them without due consideration. I've personally been the victim of crime. I sure as hell have no sympathy for any offender. But I'm willing to entertain the possibility that criminal behaviour is partly organic and that some kind of intervention in early childhood, or even later, might have changed the path the offender takes. To do that we have to try to discern what causes criminal behaviour, however you personally may define it. If not scientific scrutiny, then what?

Incarceration works only as long as the offender is incarcerated. Hence, we just keep building and expanding prisons. To what end?

I knew there would be individuals who could not accept an organic cause for unacceptable behaviour. To dismiss the possibility out of hand is pure folly. But I have hope. We've come a long way from the superstitious mobs who burned witches at the stake and science has been the foundation of every major human advancement. We apparently have an even longer way to go, as this board demonstrates.

Stop the haters, enjoy the Chimpin.

Any of these scientists hear of "Children Learn What They Live"? It is a real oldie, but there is a lot of truth in it.

Another scientist/sociologist did a study of children (not sure of ethnic backgrounds) this was probably in the 1960s, maybe earlier, that showed that a child will treat a doll the way the child themselves are treated. If the child gets yelled at and hit, the child will yell at the doll and hit it. Primates learn by imitation - humans are a highly evolved (allegedly) primate.

Try as they may to blame genetics - PARENTS MAKE THE DIFFERENCE.

Children Learn What They Live
By Dorothy Law Nolte, Ph.D.

If children live with criticism, they learn to condemn.
If children live with hostility, they learn to fight.
If children live with fear, they learn to be apprehensive.
If children live with pity, they learn to feel sorry for themselves.
If children live with ridicule, they learn to feel shy.
If children live with jealousy, they learn to feel envy.
If children live with shame, they learn to feel guilty.
If children live with encouragement, they learn confidence.
If children live with tolerance, they learn patience.
If children live with praise, they learn appreciation.
If children live with acceptance, they learn to love.
If children live with approval, they learn to like themselves.
If children live with recognition, they learn it is good to have a goal.
If children live with sharing, they learn generosity.
If children live with honesty, they learn truthfulness.
If children live with fairness, they learn justice.
If children live with kindness and consideration, they learn respect.
If children live with security, they learn to have faith in themselves and in those about them.
If children live with friendliness, they learn the world is a nice place in which to live.

Copyright © 1972 by Dorothy Law Nolte

Somehow I just don't think Doctor Nolte ever lived in any of the places I did.

We've come a long way from the superstitious mobs...

I wouldn't go that far. Take, for instance, Scientology. People who appear to be well-read and fairly intelligent spend tons of money with Scientology due to superstition. That's one example, but there are certainly others.

The idea that genetics gives individuals certain talents or proclivities is hardly new. The argument between environment and heredity has been going on for generations. The real truth is somewhere in the middle.

I'm sorely tempted to take a few shots at the Moonbats here, but using an incredible amount of self-control I've refrained. See?

What some scientists have ascertained is that if we find the gene or genes that cause mental illness and switch it off (so to speak) we'll also deprive that person of their natural artistic talent, as it seems that you can't have one without the other.