Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Discover 'Crime Gene'
Buggernut writes "Researchers from King's College in London have found that boys who have a particular version of a gene are much more likely to go off the rails if they suffer maltreatment when young." MAO breaks down a whole class of brain-affecting chemicals, and MAO inhibitors are commonly used to treat depression (but are known to produce mood swings and violence). So if you have a genetic predisposition to low levels of MAO, your resistance to various mood-altering chemicals is lowered. You ever get the feeling that we're tinkering with a hugely complex system and observing only one or two of the most pronounced effects?
This brings up an interesting question...
If someone has this gene, and got in to trouble, are they responsible for their own actions? We have already kept mentaly retarded people from getting the death penalty, are these people next?
Finally we have used Science to absolve Dungeons & Dragons, goth culture, mp3 stealing, and video games from responsibility for school shootings. Hopefully this will shut up that element in American society that believes that censorship can ever put an end to the kind of violence that has plagued our society for the last few years.
This comes as a great relief to those of us who are of a civil libertarian bent. It seems that the effects of so-called "evil" media and entertainment are what we've always claimed: figments of the imaginations of people looking for a scapegoat. Now we can go about jailing these genetically predetermined killers before they can do any harm to society. Another triumph for Science.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
Me: here, Billy
Billy: I caught it!
Me: Good, Billy. Now, I'm going to throw another ball over your head. Don't try to catch this one.
So what does billy do?
Being genetically predisposed to something is nothing like not having the ability to understand or control your actions.
In mathematics, one does not understand things, one merely gets used to them.
--VonNeumann
... published on Thursday is this one. Not much more information, though.
James F.
"I plead guilty to being a vicious serial spammer and occasional pud pounder because my genes make me do it and my mommy once spanked me for torturing the neighbor's pussy, er, cat and if you give me a break I know you'll always fondly remember that you didn't pass up on this really, really fabulous chance to win the cheapest insurance for your cheap Asian porn adventures in hot, steamy Borneo, courtesy of the owners of your new timeshare in Florida, where you can get cheap airline tickets to anywhere in the world and while there thank yourself for doing justice today. Thank you, your honor!"
Judge: *pound* Five million and five years!
Everything in the Universe sucks: It's the law!
Now they will probably test everyone for this gene along with drugs. Everyone that happens to have this gene won't be able to get a job. Just substitute "crime gene" for Jew, and we have Nazi Germany all over again...
why couldn't they have found something useful like the stupidity gene, or the 'predisposition to middle management' gene. Maybe the even the dreaded 'oblivious to reality' gene. We could stamp a big L at birth on foreheads of those afflicted and save the rest of us a lot of time and pain.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
The most startling aspect of this is, imo, that this gives people the ability to blame social problems on biological factors. People are more and more able to ignore the social factors that lead to crime, and listen only to the "it's not my fault" attitude that things like "crime genes" allow.
It is possible that genetic research may eventually contribute something to our knowledge of crime, and perhaps even to its control. But the contribution will most likely be indirect. And any aspects of genetic disorders or other biological factors, most likely will be contributed to other things such as alcoholism and addictions rather than genes being blamed for the violent behavior.
What sort of banal comment is the editor trying to make? The scientists have been saying - clearly, loudly, and continuously - that genes form a complex system where one trait might have many chromosomes and one chromosome might affect several traits. To only "get the feeling" now is incredible. Has the editor been living under a damn rock?!?
Well Billy, I am sorry that your genes pre-disposed you to bashing someone over the head (or stealing billions through corporate fraud), but my genes pre-dispose me to ignoring your plea and locking you up for 50 years.... What delema?
--- I would prefer a prehensile tail....
You ever get the feeling that we're tinkering with a hugely complex system and observing only one or two of the most pronounced effects?
That's the best thing I've ever seen written in slashdot. We're like the proverbial blind men trying to identify an elephant by touching just a single part.
I bet someone will want to, in the future, screen potential employees for this gene to see if they'll be violent or not. This can lead us to an era of genetic discrimination, like in Gattaca.
So yet another thing for American's to use to absolve themselves of responsibility for screwing up. Whatever. I say bullshit.
Another way to look at these results is to say that certain people are genetically predisposed to react *more severely* to certain forms of stimuli and treatment at an early age where personality traits and reactions are *still forming*.
This does nothing to change the fact that parents use the TV, PS2, and Internet as babysitters, and then cry foul when Johnny can't read and/or has low self esteem, or Johnny gets in trouble for hacking pron sites because they've raised their child to believe everything has a reset switch and a save game option.
Your children can and will be used against you in a court of law.
- billn
... are not commonly prescribed anymore because they interact with damn near every chemical you could possibly put into your body. everything from ginseng to st. john's wort to alcohol. If you or anyone you know is still taking them, you should talk to your doctor about switching to a safer more effective alternative.
It is important to note that the study focused only on men who had been abused. It has been well established that anyone who has been abused is more prone to destructive behavior. What would be more significant is if a study group of people with the gene found a significant portion of that population, regardless of upbringing, had criminal or anti-social tendencies.
I also found it positive that the article stated several times that genes do not define a person and that there are more serious problems at hand when discussing crime than prevention through opression.
Why must the media try and distill every genetics study into a "we've found the X gene" story? It's this kind of sensationalistic reporting that perpetuates the skewed image the average American has about science. Behavior is complicated, and you aren't going to be able to explain something like criminal behavior with a single "crime gene." Behavioral disorders likely involve multiple genes. There is evidence that this is the case in schizophrenia - familiy members of schizophrenics often have a spectrum of symptoms to varying degrees without being full-blown schizophrenics themselves. This is one reason the new gene chip array technologies are so popular in the neurosciences. You can screen changes in the expression of thousands of genes at the same time. It is the combined effect of sets of genes - not one single gene - that cause complex changes in behavior. I wish the media would get a clue. This was on the BBC for chrissakes.
Sorry if I sound ornery. I guess I got in a bad mood when on odyssey5 tonight, the science geek went on about how serotonin reuptake inhibitors worked "just like ketamine." You're a science fiction show. Hire a science consultant dammit.
-margaret
Is there a cure for the Geek Gene?
(Don't need a test for it. A gorgeous babe can sense one for miles and adjust course accordingly.)
Table-ized A.I.
Don't rule out some sort of discrimination coming about. Tests for genes like this one might come down in price enough for large scale use, and then you'd have a major problem. Governments might try to lock up people with certain genes on the belief that they are preventing crime. Considering what we've seen from the general population recently, I wouldn't discount the possibility. Genetics are a big factor, but you can still overcome your "programming", you aren't a slave to it.
"Crime" is violation of laws - laws that are written by "God" fearing people - or something similiar. But if you subjectively look at it - laws and crime are just opinions - perhaps popular opinions, but without religeon, there is no right or wrong. Now someone claims to have found a "crime" gene - I'm sorry but I don't believe there physically exists a gene that determines subjective behavior - if there is a link, then there is a God - I doubt both.
Hibbert: Well, only one in two million people has what we call the "evil gene". [holds up a card showing DNA] Hitler had it, Walt Disney had it, and Freddy Quimby has it. [chuckles]
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
Sounds like this is good stuff for the sequal to Minority Report
Jesus saves souls and redeems them for valuable cash prizes
Warning: A very small percentage of the population has a life threatening allergic reaction to sulfites.
Sulfites are widely used to keep food from turning brown and are found in vineger, wines mushrooms, and other food that you know darn well should turn brown after they've been in you fridge for months.
You are what you eat.
BTW MAO inhibitors use to be used tp treat a number mental conditions. Depression being one, I think. It is little used these days because of the hash side effect on the body. MAO is located in the mitrocondria and breakdown a number of neural transmitters such as dopamine, serotonin and catacolamines such as adrenain. No wonder low activity put people on edge.
This is exactly the base of the plot of Crime Zero by Michael Cordy. Scary...
-- Cheers!
But all people with the crime gene, hate and aggression gene should be put on medication
I think the world would be better off if these emotional flaws did not exsist.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Crime is always treated as a singular thing by researchers. Ever get the feeling that maybe human behaviour is more hugely complex than they give credit for? All they've concluded is that "Hey, these people are subject to mood-swings. They are more likely to be criminals." This has less to do with crime than it does with self-control. Treating "crime" like something that actually exists rather than an abstraction based on the combination whatever laws happen to be in place in your area with the behaviour of the people in that area.
Are downloading an illegal MP3, spamming someone in Ohio, murdering someone in the heat of an argument, raping a baby, speeding on the highway, smoking while underage, and smoking dope really all the same thing? Fucking sensationalists scientists are the reason for all the ignorance in the populace. How are we supposed to have an educated population when their "education" consists of making them interested in topics that could line the pockets of researchers?
Stop maltreatment of people, young or old.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
The movie Gattaca is a study in the social consequences of genetic profiling. There is a homicide case in which the initial suspect merely has the wrong genes; the actual killer claims that his genes make him incapable of violence.
On a more positive note, people with this gene could be made aware of it, and they could learn how to manage their aggression, much like parapalegics learn to live with a wheelchair, and schizophrenics learn to recognize when they are are holucinating.
I haven't posted to Slashdot in a long time, but thought that since this is about something near to me, which doesn't happen often, I would.
I'm loosely involved with Avshalom Caspi's group (Caspi is the lead author of the study, and happens to be at U of Wisconsin as well as UC London). I don't work directly with Avshalom on a daily basis, but I know him, and work with their data, etc. on a fairly regular basis. I wasn't involved in this particular study, but knew about it ahead of time.
Anyway, there's a couple of things to keep in mind about this study before you take it too much to heart. First, there's no replication sample in this study. While that isn't always an issue in science, with behavioral genomic studies it is, because effect sizes are typically so small to begin with, and false positives are an ongoing concern. It's of particular concern in this study because they're claiming an interaction effect. Now, you'd think that interactive effects would be the norm in psychology, but in fact, they're notoriously difficult to replicate, and almost never do. Not never, but rarely. If this effect didn't reliably replicate, I wouldn't be surprised in the least.
Second, there's no background genetic controls. If MAO polymorphisms had never been included in the study, Avshalom would have been laughed off the scene because of the lack of genetic controls (e.g., using twin, adoption, or family designs). There's a lot of genetic variance in that sample that is related to externalizing behavior that's not being accounted for by the single gene that they considered in the study. It's entirely possible that that background genetic variation is accounting for the interaction with MAO polymorphisms and not abuse per se.
It's a great study, with a lot to think about, and I think more people should do more studies like it. But I am a bit reluctant to make too much of it at his point, because there's a lot of things that were missing in the study, things that were especially important given the complexity of the claims they were making.
>We're like the proverbial blind men trying to identify an elephant by touching just a single part.
>To only "get the feeling" now is incredible. Has the editor been living under a damn rock?!?
Ah, slashdot -- where points are made with conflicting cliches.
No one will admit that certain types of people are responsible for certain types of crime. You all know what I am talking about, but you're not willing to admit it. We don't need some sort of 'science' to tell us what is apparent to everyone who is not poisoned by the media. Yes, you all know when to double check when your wallet is safe and your not looking vulnerable. So why fight it? EXPRESS IT!