Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Scientists Seek Biomarkers For Violence

Posted by timothy on from the thoughtcrime-or-a-propensity-thereto dept.

An anonymous reader writes "A Newtown couple, both scientists, who lost their daughter in the school shooting, are wondering whether there were clues in the shooter's physiological makeup — his DNA, his blood, his brain chemistry. They are now involved in a search for biomarkers, similar to those that may indicate disease, for violence. They are raising money to help fund this research, but the effort is running into obstacles, in part, over ethical concerns. 'I'm not opposed to research on violence and biomarkers, but I'm concerned about making too big of a leap between biomarkers and violence,' said Troy Duster, a researcher at the University of California at Berkeley. There is concern that science may find biomarkers long before society can deal with its implications."

46 of 294 comments (clear)

  1. AC Post by milgram · · Score: 2

    That would be my guess as a good marker... :>

    1. Re:AC Post by war4peace · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Makes sense in most cases.
      More on-topic: Just today I was reading about a guy with Down Syndrome managing to pass exams in my country which would be the equivalent of post-high school exams. He even passed with pretty good grades, while lots of "healthy" individuals failed soundly.

      How does that link to this article? Well, even if people with Down Syndrome usually can't achieve that, some do. I think the same would apply to biomarkers: they might raise awareness but definitely wouldn't bring certainty that violence WILL occur. It's pretty dangerous to make assumptions based on the fact that you "might" become violent.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    2. Re:AC Post by Nerdfest · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sadly, his accomplishment is far more likely related to the quality and expectations of most high schools. Most places have been slowly lowering the bar for quite some time.

    3. Re:AC Post by Vanderhoth · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't know about that, while I can't argue about most places dropping the bar, my step-mother is a special needs teacher. Many of the students she deals with I've gotten to know personally and have no doubts in my mind they have the same intelligence level as a lot of other people their age. I find a lot of the time their issues revolve around their lack of communication skills, similar to how someone who is super smart is perceived as dumb because they can't talk to others or have trouble writing things down.

    4. Re:AC Post by Evtim · · Score: 3, Insightful

      According to YouTube 21 M people have already seen this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w [Zeitgeist 2011].

      I thought the matter is settled already - trying to find "gene for violence" is futile and dangerous. One of the cited studies found some such gene, but if the individual was not raised in harsh environment it did not turn on [and that group actually scored lower than "normal" on violence in such cases] but in the opposite case the gene was turned on. Also - if you don't have that gene and are abused you will also likely become violent.

      So what do we have here? If you carry that gene you are more sensitive than others to violence against you. You run higher risk than others to become violent yourself if exposed to abuse. Such individuals then would require a tad more consideration rather than being already stigmatized as "potential troublemaker". See how this research will do the opposite of what they supposedly intent? See the pavement on the road to Hell? Yhea, me too...

    5. Re:AC Post by war4peace · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To top it off, I have a pretty sizable inner potential for violence. The road I took in order to control my impulses was long, windy and hard. I can say I've been "cured" mostly, although I still have occasional (short) outbursts.

      I'm thinking that a "gene" detective would still categorize me in a way which is less than flattering, so-to-speak.

      Now, those scientists who are trying to find biomarkers for violence are driven not by scientific curiosity, but vengeance. They are trying to "find all motherfuckers who resemble the motherfucker who killed our child". I'm not blaming them (it's a human impulse after all), but I don't think they deserve support either.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    6. Re:AC Post by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It would be interesting though if they saw such gene or genes in a majority of the type-a personalities typically found in politics or corporate boardrooms.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    7. Re:AC Post by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What if these same markers are co-incident with those for creativity or genius? What if they are the same as those for compassion or charity, but part of a more holistic interaction, which results in the perceived different expression?

      "Be careful, lest in casting out your demon you exorcise the best thing in you."
      -- Friedrich Nietzsche

      What if our entire set of personal traits cannot be reduced to deterministic, binary markers?

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    8. Re:AC Post by gmanterry · · Score: 2

      So, if they find a marker linked to violence, what happens? Are all those people instantly incarcerated? What about the trigger level or the level of violence? There is a huge difference between punching someone in the nose and shooting up a public gathering. I would never trust government with this information. It reeks of Nazi Germany. Kill all the jews... kill at the homosexuals. Scary stuff.

      --
      Since when is "public safety" the root password to the Constitution?
    9. Re:AC Post by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is like the bizarre, inverted hypothesis of the "hard AI" folks, and their cohort in the "singularity" camp.

      They seem to imply the challenge: "Prove that a human mind is not deterministically reducible to binary representation."

      They have frequently reversed the assumption and hypothesis relationship.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    10. Re:AC Post by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

      I think the same would apply to biomarkers: they might raise awareness but definitely wouldn't bring certainty that violence WILL occur. It's pretty dangerous to make assumptions based on the fact that you "might" become violent.

      Definitely, but they know that already. It's genomics 101: a marker is not a 100% sign that a phenotype will develop. They undoubtedly describe their research as being primarily useful in identifying factors that make violence more likely. Their goal wouldn't be "Lock up everyone who has X Y and Z markers." Their goal would be "Identify markers that, in conjunction with other things like abuse as a child, drug problems, etc, could increase the chances that someone is going to become violent, understand how those genes work, and maybe develop drugs to be given in some circumstances."

      Put another way, if these researchers were so uninformed as to think that there is a DNA sequence which will tell them with 100% certainty that someone is going to commit violence, then they're not actually scientists and we don't need to worry about them accomplishing anything.

      IF they identify markers for violence, THEN we will need to concern ourselves with making sure society doesn't take that as a certainty. Society has decided that sex offenders usually having a high rate of recidivism means that every individual sex offender is going to commit another sex offense, so we should lock them up forever. But that's for people who have already committed a crime. Being sexually assaulted as a child increases the chances of one becoming a child molester, yet we don't victims as ticking time bombs. People with these markers won't have committed a crime already, so perhaps society IS mature enough to handle it.

    11. Re:AC Post by war4peace · · Score: 2

      There's a problem with the "conjunction" approach.
      Let's take John Doe who suffered from abuse during childhood and also has this "wonder-gene" that's looked for right now. We have two factors here which, summed up, lead to X% chance for that person to become violent.
      Now, what we don't know is the weight of each factor.

      Going by the extremes, the childhood abuse might account for 99% of that chance to become violent, rendering the second factor negligible. Or it might be quite the other way around.

      The question is: how do you measure those weights considering a sample of 1000 people who never committed violence so far? Or 1000 people who did? Or a mix of both? I can't see a solution...

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    12. Re:AC Post by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      IF they identify markers for violence, THEN we will need to concern ourselves with making sure society doesn't take that as a certainty. Society has decided that sex offenders usually having a high rate of recidivism means that every individual sex offender is going to commit another sex offense, so we should lock them up forever.

      Except we don't do that at all. We'd rather keep nonviolent drug offenders in prison for ridiculously long terms.

      With the convicted pedophiles, molestors, or just some poor kid that had sex with his slightly underage girlfriend, or some guy who was drunk and pissed in public, we go ahead and release them, but give them a "sex offender" label (which is the same, no matter whether you just pissed in public in view of a child or you molested one), which prevents them from living a certain distance from schools or day-care centers. What this translates to is they aren't allowed to live in any inhabited area, except under a bridge somewhere, because that's the only place they can find that isn't too close to a school or day-care center. They'd probably be a lot happier if we set up their own small city in the middle of North Dakota, free of any schools or children so they can live like normal people.

  2. So what then? by N0Man74 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "This guy has a biomarker for violence... Shoot him! Get him before he attacks!"

    I'm reminded of the parody video from The Onion (I think) where you had a jock who was killing the misfits at his high school so that they wouldn't snap and create another columbine.

    1. Re:So what then? by FunPika · · Score: 2

      Then it is similar to a real life version of The Minority Report by Philip K. Dick, but with a different crime prediction method.

      --
      After years of not using a signature, I am going to make one to say the following: Fuck Beta
    2. Re:So what then? by tnk1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem is that any biomarkers of an individual is at best half the story.

      What would they find? A propensity to act impulsively or violently to certain stimuli, perhaps? What if such a person could gain enough experience to control those impulses?

      Alternately, otherwise perfectly normal people go bananas because they are subjected to people who are not violent, but they are incredibly manipulative. Or perhaps situations completely outside their control like a terrible accident or terrorist attack. Their otherwise non-impulsive nature might, over time, be turned to murderous rage.

      There are real concerns about labeling people in a way that could cause immediate action to be taken against them before the whole picture is understood. Incomplete science can always be used as a particularly potent excuse for atrocity.

    3. Re:So what then? by khasim · · Score: 2

      1. I don't believe that there are any "biomarkers" for "violence" that are not common to every person alive today.

      2. Remember "The Bell Curve"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve Once you start attempting to match biology to behaviour you run into all kinds of problems with biases and statistics.

    4. Re:So what then? by gandhi_2 · · Score: 2

      What if such a person could gain enough experience to control those impulses?

      ....or use them in a criminal prosecution defense strategy.

      --
      THL phish sticks
    5. Re:So what then? by icebike · · Score: 2

      I'm reminded of the parody video from The Onion (I think) where you had a jock who was killing the misfits at his high school so that they wouldn't snap and create another columbine.

      Well if you think "misfits" aren't already subject to extra scrutiny these days you would be wrong.

      School administration, teachers, counselors are all getting training in this. And its more an more evident that even other students are starting to look out for certain types.

      So far, the merely odd or quirky kids have not been caught up in this to a great deal, but it still does happen, especially to guys who go goth.

      I would expect that knowledge of biological markets that might be discovered would be welcome, by parents and perhaps the people having them. If you know about a predisposition to heart disease you can take extra care. If you are exceptionally predisposed to breast cancer you can guard against that, and take extreme steps. (Jolie).

      Oddly enough, the aids virus is now being used to deliver "genetic fixes" to repair or compensate certain genetic defects and even fight http://www.examiner.com/article/science-fiction-aerosol-delivery-of-an-engineered-virus-halts-lung-cancer-progression-mice>cancer.

      As a parent, I would jump at the chance to have my kid tested for that even in the absence of symptoms, early enough to make changes in education and upbringing.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    6. Re:So what then? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

      There's quite a lot you could do. Most genes that affect the brain and behavior do so by means of hormone/protein production during development. It's not hard to imagine very low grade localized doses of specifically tailored chemicals to reduce the effect. That's prenatal chemical lobotomy, and raises serious ethical concerns too, but it's not as bad as just shooting someone.

    7. Re:So what then? by dyingtolive · · Score: 2

      As a parent, I would jump at the chance to have my kid tested for that even in the absence of symptoms, early enough to make changes in education and upbringing.

      The problem is not you getting results and taking care of them accordingly. It's everyone else that gets their hands on the results and treats your kids like second class citizens.

      I could have enough faith in a person to do the former. I lack sufficient faith in society to not do the latter.

      --
      Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
    8. Re:So what then? by bkr1_2k · · Score: 2

      That's prenatal chemical lobotomy, and raises serious ethical concerns too, but it's not as bad as just shooting someone.

      Isn't it? We're are at the infancy of understanding how our brains work and how these markers really interact and create the "final product" of who we are. Even implying this as an option is seriously premature.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    9. Re:So what then? by tnk1 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Mordenkainen's Faithful Hacker is a level 9 spell. You're going to need at least a Wish to reverse it unless you have Mordenkainen's Injunction memorized.

    10. Re:So what then? by dywolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Citizen 1138, age 11, you punched a classmate. DNA Analysis reveals are prone to violence, and will be locked up for the protection of society."
      Like the perfect storm of combining self-fulfilling prophecy with zero tolerance overreactions. like the story of Joey (the minor petty thief who was a good kid, until they locked him for 6 years over a pack of gum. by the time he got out, he was hardened and conditioned to taking what he needed to survive) taken to the extreme.

      but ya, it compeltely ignores the ideas of self-control, free-will, and growth as an individual.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    11. Re:So what then? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

      Fetuses don't have a distinct identity. Dogs have more personality. Doesn't even register as a concern. Dictating what kinds of brains are desired is an ethical question, but it's not that one.

    12. Re:So what then? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      "What if such a person could gain enough experience to control those impulses?"

      You crazy bleeding-hearts! You'll probably be suggesting that inexperienced job applicants can be 'trained' and turned into valuable employees, rather than just being circular filed by HR, next...

    13. Re:So what then? by Znork · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Wikipedia entry on wolf attacks certainly indicates otherwise. It seems they prefer not to attack men who can defend themselves but they'll certainly attack and eat women and children if given the opportunity.

    14. Re:So what then? by headphones54321 · · Score: 2

      I agree, labelling people based on half science is dangerous. There was a This American Life on the topic a couple of years ago, in which they interviewed the creator, users, and victims of the Psychopath Test used to evaluate if a person is a psychopath. Guess what, it was never intended to keep kids in jail, but it's routinely used in parole hearings to justify continued incarceration....it's not a big leap to use this stuff in that way.

      Link to This American Life episode.

    15. Re:So what then? by ebno-10db · · Score: 2

      Wikipedia, LOL I said documented/verified. If you trust the sort of historical records Wikipedia is basing their shit off of, you'd have to believe in leprechauns and mermaids.

      Or worse, a random Internet poster. Here is the Wikipedia article's references. Let us know when you debunk them. In the interim please post your references.

    16. Re:So what then? by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 2
      I'm going to ignore the many absolutist fallacies in this and answer the best I can.

      Still, you can't rationally take the position that all advancement in medical science must be blocked because there is a potential for the pertinent information to be misused.

      Of course not; nor did I make it. So far as I can tell, the only claim that I have made is that it has the potential to fuck a lot of people over. Mind point out anywhere I have ever implied otherwise, so that I may correct any misunderstandings or recognize my mistake? Also, ``all advancement''. Wow.

      Think about what you are suggesting here. Condemning someone to a life of violence

      Excluding pathological mental disorders, the genes likely only provide a small nudge in that direction.

      (to say nothing about their victims)

      Yes, we must think of the children!

      because you purposely avoided looking for a cure?

      Cure? Where? How many genetic disorders are there that have a cure? Treatment, perhaps. What would be a treatment for a violent disposition caused by genes look like I wonder. While advancements are made every day, the fountain of youth is quite a ways off. Meanwhile, all the potential deviants are cataloged with no known cure for their `disorder'. ``Well, it says here that you have expressed genes that have been statistically shown to correlate with greed and antisocial behavior. As such, we cannot hire you for the position of janitor, as our insurance company would not cover any loses from any theft you may commit. You may apply again at such time that your genes have been altered to exclude this trait.'' Can you think of any ethical considerations of such reductionism?

      Is that the approach we took with AIDS? Drug addiction? Heart disease? Typhoid?

      For a long time; mostly; `normal' people have heart disease; sometimes. Ancient lepers should have probably been grateful that they were sent to colonies instead of killed outright for a disease that was no fault of their own. Even in very recent history people have slaughtered people wholesale over perceived superiority, be it cultural or under the guise of science.

      Surely it must be possible to work on both problems at once, in the Law and the Lab?

      Would it be wise to give the Romans nuclear weapons? No. Their society couldn't have handled the responsibility that came along with that power. Genetics is the very basis of humanity, and I don't trust the world to not abuse it for petty reasons.

    17. Re:So what then? by torsmo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Defense against the Dark Arts? Isn't that a Harry Potter thing?? This being /., I thought Mordenkainen would be well-known, being one of the earliest D&D character.

  3. Post from the future by T.E.D. · · Score: 2

    Hi! This is a post from the future.

    The good news is that they found the "bio-markers" indicating a propensity towards violence

    The bad news is that human being alive has them.

  4. Liberals tramplin my rights!! by swampfriend · · Score: 2

    Those aren't biomarkers for violence... they're biomarkers for self-defense! USA! USA!

  5. Scary Implications... by artfulshrapnel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...even if their markers are accurate. What do you do with a person that carries known biomarkers for violence? If they later do something wrong, are you legally liable for allowing them to be born if you've done prenatal testing and found the markers? What about doctors who notice them midway through the person's life, should they be legally required to report such people to the police for observation?

    I'm getting flavors of both Minority Report and Brave New World from this: You're left in a place where one of the most ethical options is to pre-judge the people, push medication and counseling on someone who's never done anything just to be safe, or encourage them into a societal role where their violent tendencies won't be as risky. Perhaps you put the violent kids in their own special (high security) elementary school, where they're guided towards a profession in the military, police, sports, or other violent profession?

    Very scary, despite how potentially useful such a discovery might be.

    1. Re:Scary Implications... by Hatta · · Score: 2

      The real question is, what counts as violence? Sure, mugging a guy in a dark alley is violent. But so is voting for politicians that engage in wars of choice, or imprison hundreds of thousands of harmless individuals.

      Most of the problems our society faces is not due to violent street criminals. It's due to ostensibly well meaning politicians making policy that hurts people. That's violence too.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  6. Obligatory by Sparticus789 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Someone must have caught Gattaca on Encore a few weeks ago. Sounds like a great idea, let's find the biomarker (a.k.a. genes) which identify violent behavior. Then what? Lobotomies? Indefinite internment? Put them on an island where they fight to the death on pay-per-view? Deny them the full rights accorded to them as citizens of the United States?

    I seem to remember an era when scientists claimed that African-Americans were inferior to people of Caucasian descent. That proved to be ridiculous, racist, and fraudulent science. This concept is so flawed I can barely scratch the surface. Biomarkers do not determine who a person is or what they will become. Look at the Twins Studies. It is neither nature nor nurture, it is both.

    --
    sudo make me a sandwich
  7. Eugenics by any other name... by reubenavery · · Score: 2

    Please, "scientists", we've been down this road before... and it did not end well.

  8. Good SciFi WARNS about doing this sort of stuff... by dryriver · · Score: 2

    What is the point of 1984, Brave New World, Minority Report and Gattaca if, instead of drawing important lessons from this kind of dystopian work, a bunch of nutty scientists & government do PRECISELY WHAT SCIFI WARNS NOT TO DO... This stuff was meant as a warning about constructing the wrong kind of future, rather than as a manual or blueprint for FUCKING THE FUTURE UP FOR EVERYBODY... News like this just makes me sad. Nuff Said...

    --
    Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
  9. Is anyone else noticing a trend? by harvestsun · · Score: 2

    Any time some spectacular event like this happens (shootings, acts of terrorism, etc.), the end result is that our rights are further diminished so we can "prevent this from happening again in the future!"

    Because unfortunately, the average voter makes decisions based on emotions/short-term benefits, without considering the ramifications to the society as a whole.

    The Patriot Act was bad enough, but now we're going to stereotype people based on physical attributes they have no control over? Ridiculous. I'm almost ready to side with the conspiracy theorists... I mean, face it, if someone in power wants a more authoritarian government, the best way to accomplish that is apparently domestic terrorism.

  10. The cure for violence? by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

    The Ludovico technique...

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  11. newspeak: BioCriminal by stanlyb · · Score: 2

    There is a saying: if you look hard enough for evidence, no matter what and where, soon or later you will find it.
    I just wonder what would this biomarker look like? Improper skull form? Skin color? or, missing DNA chain?

  12. Re:Phrenology and undesirable traits by rednip · · Score: 2

    Phrenology is a great way to find such people.

    I agree! Anyone who believes in such junk science should be immediately removed from society.

    --
    The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
  13. Re:History repeats itself. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

    Eh, phrenology doesn't discredit all attempts to put psychology on a physical basis, any more than phlogiston proves that chemistry is nothing but a mockery of a science...

    However, even if they do find an atypically robust biological marker, I suspect that mumsy and daddy dearest are going to be disappointed:

    "Violence" and "Spree killers" are really quite different things. Spree killing is a very, very, very, atypical expression of violence(there've been, what, ~20 school shooters in all of US history? Maybe low hundreds if you count all workplace and miscellanious killing sprees?), and spree killers, while they tend not to be wildly well adjusted(especially with the benefit of raging selection bias and a lot of hindsight), tend to have really banal records before their big event. Unless a test is unbelievably precise(both in terms of false positives and false negatives), the odds of finding who you are looking for, without massive false positives, are just terrible.

    Violence/aggression in general are a much easier target; but it still isn't clear what use you'll make of such data(for comparison's sake, criminal records are probably a more robust predictor of future criminality than anything biological that we have, but that information hasn't exactly set the world of recidivism-prevention on fire). Unless you find the anti-violence equivalent of a statin(and even those aren't without controversy), just what are you going to do with probabilities?

  14. Re:History repeats itself. by melikamp · · Score: 2

    To add to that, I think the society is quite ready for an effective violence marker (may be too ready), and will know exactly what to do with the highest scores: police, athletics, and army recruiters will be lining up to get them. Who knows, may be in the future we'll have genetic castes with individuals looking as different as ants do today, each being specialized in a different human activity. (My caste would look a cross between a giant brain and a snail, and would devote itself to goofing off.)

  15. There already is a biomarker for violence by Thomas+Miconi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There already is a known genetic marker for violence. In the US, bearers of this genetic marker commit 70% of all property crimes, 90% of all murders, are 9 times more likely to be imprisoned, and comprise 93% of all prison inmates.

    This marker is known as "Y chromosome".

    Think of that.

  16. so prison, then by globaljustin · · Score: 2

    benefit from special protection from certain environments

    So taking away freedoms and making them into an out-group. With no behavioral basis just a reading on a machine.

    It won't work because it never has worked. It just alienates and causes resentment and anger...things that *definitely* cause a person to be more 'at-risk'...

    'special protection from certain environments'......indeed

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett