David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Bioethics 27 (7):382-387 (2013)
The ‘gene of’ is a teleosemantic expression that conveys a simplistic and linear relationship between a gene and a phenotype. Throughout the 20th century, geneticists studied these genes of traits. The studies were often polemical when they concerned human traits: the ‘crime gene’, ‘poverty gene’, ‘IQ gene’, ‘gay gene’ or ‘gene of alcoholism’. Quite recently, a controversy occurred in 2006 in New Zealand that started with the claim that a ‘warrior gene’ exists in the Mãori community. This claim came from a geneticist working on the MAOA gene. This article is interested in the responsibility of that researcher regarding the origin of the controversy. Several errors were made: overestimation of results, abusive use of the ‘gene of’ kind of expression, poor communication with the media and a lack of scientific culture. The issues of the debate were not taken into account sufficiently, either from the political, social, ethical or even the genetic points of view. After more than 100 years of debates around ‘genes of’ all kinds (here, the ‘warrior gene’), geneticists may not hide themselves behind the media when a controversy occurs. Responsibilities have to be assumed
|Keywords||ethical responsibility MAOA warrior gene Maori|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
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.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
D. Wensley & M. King (2008). Scientific Responsibility for the Dissemination and Interpretation of Genetic Research: Lessons From the “Warrior Gene” Controversy. Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (6):507-509.
Jonathan Michael Kaplan & Massimo Pigliucci (2001). Genes `For' Phenotypes: A Modern History View. Biology and Philosophy 16 (2):189--213.
Rosario M. Piro (2011). Are All Genes Regulatory Genes? Biology and Philosophy 26 (4):595-602.
Maurizio Salvi (2001). Shaping Individuality: Human Inheritable Germ Line Gene Modification. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 22 (6):527-542.
Peter J. Beurton, Raphael Falk & Hans-Jörg Rheinberger (eds.) (2000). The Concept of the Gene in Development and Evolution: Historical and Epistemological Perspectives. Cambridge University Press.
Petter Portin (2002). Historical Development of the Concept of the Gene. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 27 (3):257 – 286.
Karola Stotz & Paul Griffiths (2004). Genes: Philosophical Analyses Put to the Test. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 26 (1):5-28.
Thomas A. C. Reydon (2009). Gene Names as Proper Names of Individuals: An Assessment. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60 (2):409-432.
C. Kenneth Waters (1994). Genes Made Molecular. Philosophy of Science 61 (2):163-185.
Roger Sansom (2008). Countering Kauffman with Connectionism: Two Views of Gene Regulation and the Fundamental Nature of Ontogeny. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59 (2):169-200.
Paul E. Griffiths & Karola Stotz (2007). Gene. In David L. Hull & Michael Ruse (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to the Philosophy of Biology. Cambridge University Press
Petter Portin (2009). The Elusive Concept of the Gene. Hereditas 146 (3):112-117.
Added to index2012-04-13
Total downloads18 ( #254,622 of 1,932,454 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #456,114 of 1,932,454 )
How can I increase my downloads?