“Yet the Problem Remains”: Why Genetic Determinism Still Haunts Biomedical Research

IF 2.3 2区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
Bioethics Pub Date : 2026-08-11 Epub Date: 2026-03-22 DOI:10.1111/bioe.70102
Christopher R. Donohue, Ian A. Myles
{"title":"“Yet the Problem Remains”: Why Genetic Determinism Still Haunts Biomedical Research","authors":"Christopher R. Donohue,&nbsp;Ian A. Myles","doi":"10.1111/bioe.70102","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>After the horrors of the Holocaust and its connections to eugenics were revealed to the world, many post-war population geneticists sought to establish rhetorical distance from the Nazi's state-led campaigns, without abandoning their belief that actively shaping the population's genetics would produce a prosperous society. While many advancements in equity have come, well-intentioned geneticists continue to struggle to distance themselves from those weaponizing genetic data. Herein, we outline the practices which often prevent modern population genetics from ridding itself of the ghost of genetic determinism. These include the interlocking practices of: agnostically noting “genes matter” without detailing the degree or context of importance; using examples or explanations which can be ambiguously interpreted; using flawed data to assert that medical advances require genetic insights; homogenizing the environment in ways that ignore, rather than account for, deleterious exposures; insisting that populations be mathematically segregated prior to performing their analysis; then, when predictable harms arise, using lack of intent to harm as an excuse to refuse to change standard practices or to accept responsibility. Finally, discrete recommendations for improvements are presented. Unlike denouncements of overt eugenics, it is controversial to argue that those working on the genetics of diseases like asthma may unwittingly echo the eugenicists of the past. However, the consistency of associations between modern population genetics and historic eugenics demand mechanistic evaluation.</p>","PeriodicalId":55379,"journal":{"name":"Bioethics","volume":"40 7","pages":"658-666"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bioe.70102","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bioe.70102","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/3/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

After the horrors of the Holocaust and its connections to eugenics were revealed to the world, many post-war population geneticists sought to establish rhetorical distance from the Nazi's state-led campaigns, without abandoning their belief that actively shaping the population's genetics would produce a prosperous society. While many advancements in equity have come, well-intentioned geneticists continue to struggle to distance themselves from those weaponizing genetic data. Herein, we outline the practices which often prevent modern population genetics from ridding itself of the ghost of genetic determinism. These include the interlocking practices of: agnostically noting “genes matter” without detailing the degree or context of importance; using examples or explanations which can be ambiguously interpreted; using flawed data to assert that medical advances require genetic insights; homogenizing the environment in ways that ignore, rather than account for, deleterious exposures; insisting that populations be mathematically segregated prior to performing their analysis; then, when predictable harms arise, using lack of intent to harm as an excuse to refuse to change standard practices or to accept responsibility. Finally, discrete recommendations for improvements are presented. Unlike denouncements of overt eugenics, it is controversial to argue that those working on the genetics of diseases like asthma may unwittingly echo the eugenicists of the past. However, the consistency of associations between modern population genetics and historic eugenics demand mechanistic evaluation.

“然而问题仍然存在”:为什么基因决定论仍然困扰着生物医学研究。
在大屠杀的恐怖及其与优生学的联系被世人所了解之后,许多战后人口遗传学家试图在修辞上与纳粹国家主导的运动保持距离,但同时又不放弃他们的信念,即积极塑造人口的基因将产生一个繁荣的社会。虽然在公平方面取得了许多进步,但善意的遗传学家仍在努力与那些将基因数据武器化的人保持距离。在这里,我们概述了经常阻止现代种群遗传学摆脱遗传决定论幽灵的做法。这些做法包括:不可知论地指出“基因重要”,而不详细说明其重要性的程度或背景;使用可以含糊不清地解释的例子或解释;利用有缺陷的数据断言医学进步需要对基因的了解;以忽视而不是解释有害暴露的方式使环境同质化;坚持在进行分析之前对种群进行数学隔离;然后,当可预见的伤害出现时,以缺乏伤害意图为借口拒绝改变标准做法或承担责任。最后,提出了改进建议。与公开谴责优生学不同的是,认为那些研究哮喘等疾病遗传学的人可能无意中呼应了过去的优生学家,这是有争议的。然而,现代群体遗传学和历史优生学之间联系的一致性需要机制评价。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Bioethics
Bioethics 医学-医学:伦理
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
9.10%
发文量
127
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: As medical technology continues to develop, the subject of bioethics has an ever increasing practical relevance for all those working in philosophy, medicine, law, sociology, public policy, education and related fields. Bioethics provides a forum for well-argued articles on the ethical questions raised by current issues such as: international collaborative clinical research in developing countries; public health; infectious disease; AIDS; managed care; genomics and stem cell research. These questions are considered in relation to concrete ethical, legal and policy problems, or in terms of the fundamental concepts, principles and theories used in discussions of such problems. Bioethics also features regular Background Briefings on important current debates in the field. These feature articles provide excellent material for bioethics scholars, teachers and students alike.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书