The Genetic Lottery

1. Genetic differences cause social inequalities, but don't justify them

Genetic differences between people create differences between them in their likelihood of having speech and language problems. Genetic differences between people create differences between them in their likelihood of being homeless.

Genes matter, but don't determine worth. Genetic variations influence outcomes like educational attainment, income, and health. However, these genetic effects don't imply that some people are inherently superior or more deserving. Rather, they highlight how accidents of birth - both genetic and environmental - shape life trajectories.

Genetic influences operate through long causal chains. The path from genes to complex social outcomes involves multiple steps across biological, psychological, and social levels. For example, genetic variants may affect brain development, which influences cognitive abilities, which impacts educational performance, which affects career opportunities and income. This complexity means genetic effects are neither deterministic nor simple to understand or modify.

Recognizing genetic influences doesn't justify inequality. While genes contribute to differences in socially valued traits, this doesn't mean resulting inequalities are natural, inevitable, or just. Instead, it highlights how arbitrary genetic luck shapes life outcomes in our current social systems. This recognition can motivate efforts to create more equitable societies that don't allow genetic variation to translate into vast disparities in opportunity and welfare.

2. The genetic lottery shapes life outcomes, from education to wealth

We are each one in a million—or more literally, one in 70 trillion, which is the number of unique genetic combinations that could have resulted from any two parents.

Genetic inheritance is fundamentally random. When egg and sperm combine, the process of genetic recombination creates a unique genome that has never existed before and will never exist again. This genetic lottery means siblings can differ substantially in their inherited traits, despite sharing parents.

Genetic differences correlate with life outcomes. Studies show that:

• Siblings with higher education-associated genetic variants complete more education
• They also have higher incomes and more prestigious occupations in adulthood
• A polygenic index for educational attainment accounts for about 10-15% of variance in years of schooling, similar to family income

Effects persist even controlling for family background. The impact of genetic variants remains when comparing siblings raised in the same family or when examining adopted children. This indicates genes shape outcomes through pathways beyond just inherited family advantages.

3. Genes influence complex traits through countless tiny effects

There is no single gene "for" being smart or outgoing or depressed. These outcomes are influenced by many (very, very, very many) genetic variants, each of which contributes only a tiny drop of water to the swimming pool of genes that make a difference.

Complex traits are highly polygenic. Characteristics like intelligence, personality, and educational attainment are influenced by thousands of genetic variants, each with a minuscule effect. This is in contrast to simple Mendelian traits controlled by a single gene.

Large studies are needed to detect these tiny effects. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) require massive sample sizes to identify genetic variants associated with complex traits:

• First educational attainment GWAS (126,559 people): 3 associated variants
• Second study (293,723 people): 74 variants
• Third study (1.1 million people): 1,271 variants

Polygenic indices aggregate many small effects. By combining information across thousands of variants, polygenic indices can capture meaningful amounts of variation in outcomes. However, they are probabilistic, not deterministic - there is still substantial variation in outcomes for people with similar polygenic index values.

4. Race and genetics are distinct; genetic research doesn't explain racial disparities

There is zero evidence that genetics explains racial differences in outcomes like education.

Race is a social construct, not a biological category. While genetic ancestry patterns reflect geographical origins, racial categories are fluid social and political groupings that don't map neatly onto genetic variation. Most genetic diversity exists within, not between, racial groups.

Current genetic research focuses on within-group differences. The vast majority of GWAS have been conducted in populations of European ancestry. Results don't necessarily generalize to other ancestral groups and can't be used to make comparisons between groups.

Genetic explanations for racial disparities are unsupported. Observed differences in outcomes between racial groups are better explained by historical and ongoing social, economic, and political factors. Genetic research on individual differences provides no evidence for innate racial differences in traits like intelligence or educational potential.

5. Genetic causes don't limit the possibility of social change

Eyeglasses don't just help with the environmentally caused portion of bad eyesight. They help with all of your eyesight, regardless of whether it is genetically or environmentally caused.

Genetic influence doesn't mean unchangeable. Even highly heritable traits can be modified by environmental interventions. Just as eyeglasses correct genetically influenced vision problems, social policies can address genetically influenced educational or economic disparities.

Social contexts shape how genes matter. Studies show genetic effects on education vary across:

• Historical periods (e.g., stronger for women after increased educational access)
• Political systems (e.g., weaker under Soviet educational policies)
• Levels of social mobility (e.g., weaker in less mobile societies)

Effective interventions can reduce genetic disparities. Some environmental changes have been shown to have larger benefits for those at higher genetic risk, thus reducing inequality. Examples include:

• Educational reforms improving health more for those at genetic risk of obesity
• Family interventions reducing alcohol problems more for those at genetic risk

6. Incorporating genetics improves social science and intervention effectiveness

If social scientists are going to rise to the challenge of actually improving people's lives, they can no longer engage in the "tacit collusion" to ignore a key source of why people's lives turn out differently—their DNA.

Ignoring genetics leads to flawed research. Many social science studies examining environmental influences fail to account for genetic confounding, potentially leading to spurious conclusions about causal effects.

Genetic data enhances causal inference. Methods like:

• Twin studies
• Adoption studies
• Sibling comparisons
• Examining effects of non-transmitted parental genes
  Allow researchers to better isolate environmental effects from genetic confounding.

Understanding genetic risk improves interventions. Incorporating genetic information can help:

• Identify who benefits most from specific interventions
• Reveal which environments are most successful at promoting equity
• Provide a clearer picture of true environmental effects

7. Recognizing genetic luck undermines meritocracy and supports redistribution

None of us deserves his or her genetics. To the extent that we enjoy good things in life—educational success, good incomes, stable jobs, good physical health, happiness and subjective well-being—it is, in large part, because we have been massively lucky.

Genetic lottery challenges notions of desert. Recognizing the role of genetic luck in shaping socially valued traits and life outcomes undermines the idea that people fully earn or deserve their successes.

Luck-based view increases support for redistribution. Research shows people are more willing to redistribute resources when inequalities stem from chance rather than choice. Framing genetics as a form of luck can thus bolster the case for policies that reduce inequality.

Redefining merit. Rather than viewing traits like intelligence or self-control as inherently praiseworthy, we can see them as arbitrarily distributed characteristics that are instrumentally useful in current social systems. This shifts focus to how we structure society to benefit everyone, regardless of genetic endowment.

8. Anti-eugenic policies should promote equity, not use genetics to exclude

Eugenic ideology has a century-long head start in articulating how genetics should be used to feed into hierarchical ideology and oppressive policies, so we anti-eugenicists have our work cut out for us.

Reject genetic determinism and hierarchy. Anti-eugenic approaches recognize genetic influences without claiming they determine a person's worth or justify social hierarchies. They oppose using genetic information to classify people into fixed social roles.

Use genetics to enhance opportunity, not restrict it. Rather than using genetic information to exclude people from educational or occupational opportunities, it should inform efforts to maximize everyone's capabilities. For example, understanding genetic risk factors can help tailor support in schools.

Create inclusive systems regardless of genetic endowment. Anti-eugenic policies aim to structure society so that freedoms, resources, and welfare aren't contingent on one's genetic luck. This might include universal healthcare, educational supports for diverse learning needs, and labor market policies that value varied skills.

9. Society should maximize capabilities of those disadvantaged by the genetic lottery

Responding to the threat of pandemic illness involves us defining our responsibilities to each other in order to protect the most vulnerable among us.

Apply pandemic thinking to genetic vulnerability. Just as we restructure society to protect those most biologically vulnerable to disease, we should consider how to support those who inherit genetic variants that increase risk of struggles in education, mental health, or economic stability.

Focus on improving outcomes for the genetically disadvantaged. Policies and interventions should aim to disproportionately benefit those who, by genetic chance, are at higher risk of poor outcomes. This approach promotes both equity and overall societal welfare.

Broaden definitions of valuable traits and contributions. Rather than narrowly rewarding a specific set of genetically influenced abilities, society can create diverse pathways for people with varying strengths to contribute and thrive. This might involve reimagining educational systems, workplaces, and definitions of success.

Last updated: October 20, 2024