Resolving the paradox of common, harmful, heritable mental disorders: Which evolutionary genetic models work best?

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29 (4):385-404 (2006)
Abstract
Given that natural selection is so powerful at optimizing complex adaptations, why does it seem unable to eliminate genes (susceptibility alleles) that predispose to common, harmful, heritable mental disorders, such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder? We assess three leading explanations for this apparent paradox from evolutionary genetic theory: (1) ancestral neutrality (susceptibility alleles were not harmful among ancestors), (2) balancing selection (susceptibility alleles sometimes increased fitness), and (3) polygenic mutation-selection balance (mental disorders reflect the inevitable mutational load on the thousands of genes underlying human behavior). The first two explanations are commonly assumed in psychiatric genetics and Darwinian psychiatry, while mutation-selection has often been discounted. All three models can explain persistent genetic variance in some traits under some conditions, but the first two have serious problems in explaining human mental disorders. Ancestral neutrality fails to explain low mental disorder frequencies and requires implausibly small selection coefficients against mental disorders given the data on the reproductive costs and impairment of mental disorders. Balancing selection (including spatio-temporal variation in selection, heterozygote advantage, antagonistic pleiotropy, and frequency-dependent selection) tends to favor environmentally contingent adaptations (which would show no heritability) or high-frequency alleles (which psychiatric genetics would have already found). Only polygenic mutation-selection balance seems consistent with the data on mental disorder prevalence rates, fitness costs, the likely rarity of susceptibility alleles, and the increased risks of mental disorders with brain trauma, inbreeding, and paternal age. This evolutionary genetic framework for mental disorders has wide-ranging implications for psychology, psychiatry, behavior genetics, molecular genetics, and evolutionary approaches to studying human behavior. (Published Online November 9 2006) Key Words: adaptation; behavior genetics; Darwinian psychiatry; evolution; evolutionary genetics; evolutionary psychology; mental disorders; mutation-selection balance; psychiatric genetics; quantitative trait loci (QTL).
Keywords adaptation   behavior genetics   Darwinian psychiatry   evolution   evolutionary genetics   evolutionary psychology   mental disorders   mutation-selection balance   psychiatric genetics   quantitative trait loci (QTL)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/S0140525X06009095
Options
 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
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 26,167
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Why We Essentialize Mental Disorders.P. R. Adriaens & A. De Block - 2013 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 38 (2):107-127.
Psychiatric Molecular Genetics and the Ethics of Social Promises.John Sadler - 2011 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 8 (1):27-34.

View all 12 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Praise for a Critical Perspective.David C. Airey & Richard C. Shelton - 2006 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29 (4):405-405.

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2009-01-28

Total downloads

59 ( #86,457 of 2,153,472 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #399,080 of 2,153,472 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums