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?

Comments

Moral Delema

[MattCohn.com]

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?

Re:Moral Delema

[WolfWithoutAClause]

Well, legally the acid test is: did they understand what they were doing was wrong. If so then they're guilty. Whether they had any choice to feel that way isn't something that the law profession concerns themself with overly.

Personally I'm not sure.

It's a bit like, if a lion eats someone whether they are guilty of murder or not. Do you shoot the lion? Historically they have done so. There are moves afoot now to say- that's the kind of behaviour we expect of lions, we shouldn't have got in its way.

Perhaps if people were tested to find out whether they were lions or not, and people get ample chances to avoid prodding these aggressive lions among us, then we might consider the context of any provocation more carefully. Ultimately though, the law would still have to draw a line somewhere- you'd want to lock up people that are sufficiently dangerous in any case.

Re:Moral Delema

[Lars T.]

In the good olde times, there were trials against various animals for killing people. Of course non of them had anything to say in their defense ;-).

Anyway, killing somebody isn't the only solution, even if many Americans think that.

Re:Moral Delema

[Com2Kid]

and if not, intent ceases to be a legal issue anyway)

Not really, this entire western civilization thingy kinda relies upon everybody going along with the assumption that free will exists.

Whether or not it actually does exist is a rather moot point, it just needs to be assumed to exist in order for society to function.

Hell if somebody tomorrow proved with 100% certainty that free will did not exist, it would not likely change a single thing in our society. We need to assume the existence of free will or else we end up being obligated to let a lot of rather dangerous people run loose, either that or we just end up /veeeerrrry/ apathetic in our day to day lives, or both. Ick. All of those possibilities suck.

Another article...

[Jon Chatow]

... published on Thursday is this one. Not much more information, though.

New pre-employment test

[moncyb]

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...

Re:New pre-employment test

[g4dget]

That comparison is wrong in many ways.

First, the horror of Nazi Germany was the industrial-scale murder of millions of members of minorities (not only Jews) by a modern, generally educated Western society that started out as a democracy but hit economic hard times and had an overinflated national ego. This should be a warning to any nation that thinks "it can't happen here".

Otherwise, Nazi Germany was hardly unique. Let's not even get into historical or more recent genocides and mass murders. Just in terms of discrimination, Jews, blacks, communists, gypsies, and homosexuals have been strongly discriminated against in many countries, and still are today--in fact, while anti-semitism is currently unpopular in the US, many Americans evidently still think there is nothing wrong with discriminating against these other groups.

Genetic discrimination in Western nations will most likely not be like Nazi Germany but rather like the caste system in India or racial discrimination and profiling in the US--insidiously destructive but only indirectly lethal. If you have the wrong genes, you won't get health insurance, you won't be able to get many jobs, and people may not be willing to invest much in your education. Why should a private health insurance take on someone they have a good chance of losing money on? Why should a foundation give an educational scholarship to someone who has a 30% chance of dying before age 45 when there is a nearly equally qualified applicant that has no such risk?

Re:New pre-employment test

[Tablizer]

I don't really espect it ever to be legal. However, unscrupulous businesses may use black-market test for such. Some day it may be so easy to test genes that any Joe will be able to afford a gizmo for it.

Re:New pre-employment test

[moncyb]

My comparison wasn't wrong, just the way you interpreted it. I didn't say Nazi Germany was unique--I just gave it as one example. I'm also not saying that things won't end up like what you said in your last paragraph. Both scenarios are possiblities.

First, the horror of Nazi Germany was the industrial-scale murder of millions of members of minorities (not only Jews)

Do you think that happened overnight? Things slowly built up to that. As I understand it, they didn't start slaughtering people in Germany--the Nazis started on foreign soil.

How is my comparison like the Nazis? First they start forcing people with this gene to go on "medication" since these people will supposedly commit crimes if they don't. That doesn't solve the crime problem, so they decide to put these people in concentration camps...oops...I mean "mental institutions"...oops...I mean "place for the socially challenged". Then things go downhill from there...

Why don't you think that can happen in the US? In this country they blamemonger everything.

Fatty food is killing people because it gives them heart attacks--we should sue anyone who tries to sell it...who cares if the poor may depend this food to survive--they should just buy more expensive stuff and cut their rations.

Drugs cause countless social problems--we should ban them so everyone has to go to a corrupt HMO just to get a prescription, and the FDA can decline terminal patients a potentially life saving experimental medication.

Many products are "dangerous"--we should make manufacturers tack on countless warnings for even the most well known and obvious dangers, even to the point where the warnings on products that have lesser known and really dangerous problems will be ignored because there is too much crap to read.

Americans evidently still think there is nothing wrong with discriminating against these other groups.

I agree, discrimination is alive and well in the US. However I'd also like to point out your list is the same as the biparty's list. Because of the current political climate and your list, I have to wonder if you believe that the groups on your list can't discriminate and the only discrimination happens against the groups on your list. Capitalists, asians, caucasians, and even heterosexuals are also discriminated against. In fact some people discriminate against everyone that is not in their religion. I live in such an area and I am the minority here--even though I don't fit into any of the groups on your list...

social vs. biological

[tfoudray]

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.

Re:social vs. biological

[zenyu]

more able to ignore the social factors that lead to crime

The economist article explained that social factors were very important. Of the set with low-promoter regions and violent childhoods 85% had anti-social behavior. The next most violent group was the one without the DNA problem and violent childhoods, 45% of them were still violent.

There is one dutch family where many of the men don't have the oxidase-A gene at all and they are all "notoriously violent men." But this is very rare, unfortunately just having a low level of this mood regulator isn't rare. Having too high a level is related to depression so that's not so great either.

Having a peaceful home whether you have the gene problem or not is good, and even out of those abused with the problem DNA 3 out of 20 still turn out ok. The fact that 12% of the kids had been maltreated and had the problem gene is shocking to me, it means over 12% of the kids were abused at all. Now they may include non-parental abuse here, but still it's a big number we should do something about. Not just because those 12% accounted for 44% of those criminally convicted of violence, but because we want to live in a fair world. The fact that it will reduce crime 5-10 years out should be a good budgetary reason though.

Just imagine a major running campaign on reducing taxes through police attrition, or if you're liberal, extending free education out to the 2nd or 3rd year of college through court cost reductions. It sounds almost unimaginable now.

Re:social vs. biological

[zenyu]

Nope, more than 12% of the kids. 12% of the children in the study had both the gene problem and violent childhoods. There is no way to figure out how many of the violent criminals were abused, but we know it was more than 44%. It is probably more like 70-80%.

Re:Criminal gene is too loaded a term

[Jonny 290]

Aren't all three of those the same thing? Should simplify the search.

Can genetics really cause crime?

[andres32a]

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 do you mean "feeling"?

[nathanh]

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?

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?!?

Not my fault! I've got BAD GENES.

[billn]

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.

Re:Not my fault! I've got BAD GENES.

[Lars T.]

Maltreatment as a chld is hardly a new "excuse" for screwing up.

MAOI's

[tongue]

... 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.

and the geek gene?

[Tablizer]

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.)

No

[HanzoSan]

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.

Re:No

[moncyb]

This is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about. How would forcing medication on those with this gene help? The article said people with this gene who were also maltreated. Preventing child abuse may do much more than any medication. In fact the article talks about this:

They also fear that governments may turn to using drugs to fight crime, rather than tackling deep-rooted social problems.

Much easier solution than drugs:

[Lars T.]

Stop maltreatment of people, young or old.

Gattaca

[mgarraha]

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.

Re:Gattaca

[Com2Kid]

• 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.

I have watched that movie a number of times (ok, 2, and it has been quite a few years) and I do not remember that part of it at all.

I do remember giving it out at genetics presentation as a hopeful example of what the future will turn out to be like though.

Everybody perfect. What was seen in that movie was the last visage of a lost generation, after the remnants from that generation die off there would be no more problems.

Everybody healthy, everybody able. No Blind, no Deaf, no physically disabled. No schizophrenics, no bi-polars, no rapists, no pedeophiles.

Sounds like a damn fine and nifty future to me!

Re:Gattaca

[sean23007]

Ummmm... that movie wasn't designed to be a high-spirited glance into the happy, "nifty," future. It was supposed to give a vision of the bad things that could happen if we go too far without stopping to look around. Apparently, you didn't look around.

Perhaps this discovery will be helpful

[smiff]

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.

Re:Perhaps this discovery will be helpful

[billn]

Won't happen. At least, not in the US. You wouldn't spot this until late in life, via behavioral observation. In order to catch it at a point where you can adapt to it, you'd have to do gene mapping as an infant child. The only way that works well is to make it compulsory or convince parents that it's a good idea.

For all our arrogance, Americans are some of the stupidest and fearful people on the planet. Thank you, pop culture.

Re:Criminal gene is too loaded a term

[Kredal]

Nah, the criminal gene is found more often in CFO's of large companies.