Scientific responsibility for the dissemination and interpretation of genetic research: lessons from the “warrior gene” controversy

Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (6):507-509 (2008)
This paper discusses the announcement by a team of researchers that they identified a genetic influence for a range of “antisocial” behaviours in the New Zealand Māori population (dubbed the “warrior gene”). The behaviours included criminality, violence, gambling and alcoholism. The reported link between genetics and behaviour met with much controversy. The scientists were described as hiding behind a veneer of supposedly “objective” western science, using it to perpetuate “racist and oppressive discourses”. In this paper we examine what went wrong in the dissemination of the research. We chose as our framework the debate around the “internal/external” responsibilities of scientists. Using this discourse we argue that when the researchers ventured to explain their research in terms of social phenomena, they assumed a duty to ensure that their findings were placed “in context”. By “in context”, we argue that evidence of any genetic influence on behavioural characteristics should not be reported in isolation, but instead presented alongside other environmental, cultural and socio-economic influences that may also contribute to the studied behaviour. Rather than imposing a new obligation on scientists, we find this duty to contextualise results is in keeping with the spirit of codes of ethics already in place. Lessons from the “warrior gene” controversy may assist researchers elsewhere to identify potential areas of conflict before they jeopardise research relationships, or disseminate findings in a manner that fuels misleading and/or potentially discriminatory attitudes in society
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1136/jme.2006.019596
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 23,651
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Carl Mitcham (2003). Co-Responsibility for Research Integrity. Science and Engineering Ethics 9 (2):273-290.
Colin Farrelly (2007). Genetic Justice Must Track Genetic Complexity. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 17 (1):45-53.
Torsten Wilholt (2009). Bias and Values in Scientific Research. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 40 (1):92-101.
Petter Portin (2002). Historical Development of the Concept of the Gene. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 27 (3):257 – 286.
Andrew Askland (2003). Patenting Genes. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 17 (2):267-275.

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

30 ( #159,028 of 1,902,710 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #446,006 of 1,902,710 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.