Ethical, societal implications of genome-wide behavioral, brain-related traits(nature.com)
nature.com
Ethical, societal implications of genome-wide behavioral, brain-related traits
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41593-023-01333-4
29 コメント
Missing an address of the methodological conceits. Well, whitewashing them altogether via statements like "Robust statistical associations". Heavy correlation can seem to suggest a causal relationship which is actually masking a complex driver which defies our (current) intuitive or even critical understanding. If you can't explain the physiological state or process which connects particular "genetic variants" with particular "brain-related traits", there might not be a connection.
Yup. A major example is that appearance related genes can be correlated with all sorts of things that actually only happen because of how other people react to the appearance.
In Box 3, "Guidance for best practices for researchers in the context of GWAS", the authors propose 6 actions to mitigate "misuse and misappropriation of GWAS results". ("Misappropriation" is AFAICT defined as when findings are used to support opinions contrary to the academic mainstream, and I think this is implicitly supposed to mean use by racists). While item 4 does not explicitly call out an end to open science (said another way, permitting only use that is in accordance with the prevailing zeitgeist), it and the introductory text in Box 3 does hint that this is a possibility in the future.
" Ethical issues in research projects are overseen by IRBs, which mandate that a full research proposal must be submitted, evaluated and approved before the start of any project. Such a research proposal typically contains both scientific and ethical components. But these protocols rarely consider possible negative impacts on society and how these can be mitigated, and we argue that this should be added. Such a mitigation plan can include how researchers plan to translate research findings to a lay audience, how they plan to prevent or discourage commercial companies from misusing results, and how to aim to decrease the likelihood of misappropriation of results.
We propose six practical action items that can be included in such a mitigation plan:
1. Include a bioethical expert in all stages of a GWAS study: ...
2. Include relevant patient groups or social communities: ...
3. Explicitly state how the results should not be used or interpreted: ...
4. Prevent unethical usage without explicit permission: Most GWAS researchers strongly advocate the public sharing and direct download of GWAS results without going through a committee for approval. This stimulates scientific advancement and is in line with an open science policy. However, the downside of this is that uses of GWAS results are not registered and therefore possible unintended uses are not easily detected. The only way to prevent unethical use of GWAS results by other researchers or commercial parties is to only allow access after approval from the principal investigator, or a data access committee. As long as summary statistics are directly downloadable it is difficult to prevent misuse by other researchers or non-commercial parties. However, misuse by commercial companies can be discouraged by adding a so-called Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). Such a license can be accompanied by a statement that mentions that commercial use may be possible after obtaining permission from the principal investigator. This would still allow for ethical commercial uses, such as the development of novel drugs based on GWAS results.
5. Disseminate GWAS findings to the general public: ...
6. Track online discussion of results: Keep track of where results are being discussed. ... "
" Ethical issues in research projects are overseen by IRBs, which mandate that a full research proposal must be submitted, evaluated and approved before the start of any project. Such a research proposal typically contains both scientific and ethical components. But these protocols rarely consider possible negative impacts on society and how these can be mitigated, and we argue that this should be added. Such a mitigation plan can include how researchers plan to translate research findings to a lay audience, how they plan to prevent or discourage commercial companies from misusing results, and how to aim to decrease the likelihood of misappropriation of results.
We propose six practical action items that can be included in such a mitigation plan:
1. Include a bioethical expert in all stages of a GWAS study: ...
2. Include relevant patient groups or social communities: ...
3. Explicitly state how the results should not be used or interpreted: ...
4. Prevent unethical usage without explicit permission: Most GWAS researchers strongly advocate the public sharing and direct download of GWAS results without going through a committee for approval. This stimulates scientific advancement and is in line with an open science policy. However, the downside of this is that uses of GWAS results are not registered and therefore possible unintended uses are not easily detected. The only way to prevent unethical use of GWAS results by other researchers or commercial parties is to only allow access after approval from the principal investigator, or a data access committee. As long as summary statistics are directly downloadable it is difficult to prevent misuse by other researchers or non-commercial parties. However, misuse by commercial companies can be discouraged by adding a so-called Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). Such a license can be accompanied by a statement that mentions that commercial use may be possible after obtaining permission from the principal investigator. This would still allow for ethical commercial uses, such as the development of novel drugs based on GWAS results.
5. Disseminate GWAS findings to the general public: ...
6. Track online discussion of results: Keep track of where results are being discussed. ... "
In short, the author seems to be saying that knowledge of how humans work should be restricted because it can be used for harm.
I don't think I like that take. Attempts to restrict the spread of knowledge usually don't work long-term, and often result in bad actors working in secret. Some proposals relating to AI recently have had similar traits.
I don't think I like that take. Attempts to restrict the spread of knowledge usually don't work long-term, and often result in bad actors working in secret. Some proposals relating to AI recently have had similar traits.
I don't see where this interpretation comes from. One of their 6 principles is:
"5. Disseminate GWAS findings to the general public"
the 4th point is the only one that concerns limiting usage, and that clearly suggests researchers may seek to to prevent commercial use of their results unless the commercial use is vetted and useful.
"5. Disseminate GWAS findings to the general public"
the 4th point is the only one that concerns limiting usage, and that clearly suggests researchers may seek to to prevent commercial use of their results unless the commercial use is vetted and useful.
It doesn’t say that the guidelines require disclosing the research, it just states a preference for it, and point 4 doesn’t say that research could not be withheld, it simply states that withholding it is the only way to prevent “unethical” use of the research.
The bigger problem with this approach is that it’s simply not science. Science doesn’t involve prescribing a correct “ethical” interpretation of your research findings. Science doesn’t involve cultural and ethical overseers ensuring that your findings fit within some moral framework. What happens when the findings themselves are deemed unethical? They will be withheld from publication? They will be used to influence public policy without any opportunity for public scrutiny? They will have a correct interpretation prescribed for them that caries the weight of scientific fact?
If I convinced an ethics committee that locality violations were unethical, it would not be science for me to publish research that said my findings could not possibly be used to support quantum non-locality, or that my findings don’t actually reveal locality violations for ethical reasons, and that this interpretation is the only scientifically correct one. Using ethics to define an experiment is one thing, but involving ethical considerations in the research process, and the interpretation of your findings is simply anti-scientific.
The bigger problem with this approach is that it’s simply not science. Science doesn’t involve prescribing a correct “ethical” interpretation of your research findings. Science doesn’t involve cultural and ethical overseers ensuring that your findings fit within some moral framework. What happens when the findings themselves are deemed unethical? They will be withheld from publication? They will be used to influence public policy without any opportunity for public scrutiny? They will have a correct interpretation prescribed for them that caries the weight of scientific fact?
If I convinced an ethics committee that locality violations were unethical, it would not be science for me to publish research that said my findings could not possibly be used to support quantum non-locality, or that my findings don’t actually reveal locality violations for ethical reasons, and that this interpretation is the only scientifically correct one. Using ethics to define an experiment is one thing, but involving ethical considerations in the research process, and the interpretation of your findings is simply anti-scientific.
[deleted]
I've been following the state of affairs ever since the very first GWAS on humans was published not too long ago.
The studies were a little shocking at first, but really it's more surprising to me how much neurotic anxiety people have over the valuable insights in these studies. Insights that, by the way, were first discovered by cavemen in India 10,000 years ago and used it to build the first successful societies by distributing labor fairly based on these exact same brain/body types that just some guy found running a k-means on genomes and MMPI-2 answers. And these societies were pretty successful until they were taken over by people that didn't get it.
The studies were a little shocking at first, but really it's more surprising to me how much neurotic anxiety people have over the valuable insights in these studies. Insights that, by the way, were first discovered by cavemen in India 10,000 years ago and used it to build the first successful societies by distributing labor fairly based on these exact same brain/body types that just some guy found running a k-means on genomes and MMPI-2 answers. And these societies were pretty successful until they were taken over by people that didn't get it.
Cavemen in India came up with phrenology?
They discovered that the population is quite diverse but that means everyone has a role in society, and that society couldn't possibly function without the psychological and physical diversity of our species.
You make it sound like that role is predefined by just body type and mind type, it totally ignores environment
Casteism and racism: bffs
That would be a British invention.
In this context I'm one of those neurotic angsties you mentioned. Biological determinism and categorical thinking of many sorts really get my goat. Maybe I need to recalibrate my sniffer but I thought I caught some whiffs of this stuff in your first comment.
As a "mutt" with some German ancestry, some Jewish ancestry, some colonizer ancestors, some colonized ancestors, some who fled, some who dominated, I've thought long and hard about these topics, about what happened last century. I'm neurotic for good reason. Because there's danger here, especially in being overly confident about any single totalizing framework.
I've been told I shouldn't dance because of how I look. But then when I kept dancing anyway, others affirmed me and my rhythm. Who was right?
Guess I can relate to this guy: https://youtu.be/XGMIEDlOT_I
The omnigenic model suggests that even when there are observable genetic associations, they're probably very dynamic.
Who among us has the wisdom and authority to tell an individual exactly where they belong, where they fit, how they fit, what path to choose? A brand new individual whose genetic combinations and environmental context have never been seen before? A whole new being in an ever-emerging world?
Especially in times of upheaval and shifts I believe we need to keep our minds and hearts open.
I agree with you that new tools could provide insight and benefit, but there's ridiculous potential for abuse, for rationalizing and normalizing collective habits of domination old and new, for reinforcement of stereotypes and limiting beliefs.
As a "mutt" with some German ancestry, some Jewish ancestry, some colonizer ancestors, some colonized ancestors, some who fled, some who dominated, I've thought long and hard about these topics, about what happened last century. I'm neurotic for good reason. Because there's danger here, especially in being overly confident about any single totalizing framework.
I've been told I shouldn't dance because of how I look. But then when I kept dancing anyway, others affirmed me and my rhythm. Who was right?
Guess I can relate to this guy: https://youtu.be/XGMIEDlOT_I
The omnigenic model suggests that even when there are observable genetic associations, they're probably very dynamic.
Who among us has the wisdom and authority to tell an individual exactly where they belong, where they fit, how they fit, what path to choose? A brand new individual whose genetic combinations and environmental context have never been seen before? A whole new being in an ever-emerging world?
Especially in times of upheaval and shifts I believe we need to keep our minds and hearts open.
I agree with you that new tools could provide insight and benefit, but there's ridiculous potential for abuse, for rationalizing and normalizing collective habits of domination old and new, for reinforcement of stereotypes and limiting beliefs.
> categorical thinking of many sorts really get my goat
This also makes my blood boil, should we share so much in common somehow.
Race (still) has nothing to do with any of the GWAS studies, and this has been discussed in length since far before we started hooking up supercomputers to personality studies. These are discussing large differences in the chemical computers in our body that take possibly 100's of times or more longer to evolve than the amount of melanin in your skin or the shape of your nose would have evolved, and have evidently stayed that way for several 100's of thousands of years due to assortative mating.
So, given how literally every society ever tested all the way down to remote African tribes has all this exact same genetic diversity, would it not imply that this exact same distributed diversity is necessary for a healthy society to function?
Is it too difficult to imagine that certain groups of people, who we can't just use our eyes to pick out, are at greater risk from, say, macroeconomic shifts, which hampers their ability to be efficacious and extract favorable outcomes from the environment, has consequences even to certain groups that have it good?
Seems unbelievably great that we have all the data to prove all these emotionally dysregulated and life-hating schizoid racists wrong and be able to better labor distribution to improve individual and societal efficacy, but some anxieties are holding it back?
Here's an idea, you can easily prove the genetic determinism believers wrong by maintaining healthy boundaries and not internalizing other people's own self-destructive issues >:)
This also makes my blood boil, should we share so much in common somehow.
Race (still) has nothing to do with any of the GWAS studies, and this has been discussed in length since far before we started hooking up supercomputers to personality studies. These are discussing large differences in the chemical computers in our body that take possibly 100's of times or more longer to evolve than the amount of melanin in your skin or the shape of your nose would have evolved, and have evidently stayed that way for several 100's of thousands of years due to assortative mating.
So, given how literally every society ever tested all the way down to remote African tribes has all this exact same genetic diversity, would it not imply that this exact same distributed diversity is necessary for a healthy society to function?
Is it too difficult to imagine that certain groups of people, who we can't just use our eyes to pick out, are at greater risk from, say, macroeconomic shifts, which hampers their ability to be efficacious and extract favorable outcomes from the environment, has consequences even to certain groups that have it good?
Seems unbelievably great that we have all the data to prove all these emotionally dysregulated and life-hating schizoid racists wrong and be able to better labor distribution to improve individual and societal efficacy, but some anxieties are holding it back?
Here's an idea, you can easily prove the genetic determinism believers wrong by maintaining healthy boundaries and not internalizing other people's own self-destructive issues >:)
Indian castes were a British invention?
I too did not realize the caste system was strengthened by the British until the past few weeks. I've only read brief descriptions.
One such is here: https://u.osu.edu/cs1100sp21fechtel/2021/02/05/context-resea...
One such is here: https://u.osu.edu/cs1100sp21fechtel/2021/02/05/context-resea...
thanks
> 1. Include a bioethical expert in all stages of a GWAS study: ...
Bio-ethics job-security strokes again. Provide literally 0 value or solutions other than spitting verbage over the research and increasing the barrier to entry for small labs, so only the giant labs can afford the bureaucracy.
No thanks!
Bio-ethics job-security strokes again. Provide literally 0 value or solutions other than spitting verbage over the research and increasing the barrier to entry for small labs, so only the giant labs can afford the bureaucracy.
No thanks!
Judging from the current state of research and education, I think that it will take a lot more than a polite refusal. You will be required to comply if you wish to participate.
You will be required to comply if you wish to participate.
Or, as the OSS community likes to say, "fork it". Surely there are enough against the current mainstream ideology to start their own side.
Or, as the OSS community likes to say, "fork it". Surely there are enough against the current mainstream ideology to start their own side.
It's time to walk the line between targeted curative and preventative therapies that reduce or mitigate severe suffering and the dystopian gattica world where companies can reject you based on genomics.
As per usual, we'll do it in that beautifully painful messy human way.
As per usual, we'll do it in that beautifully painful messy human way.
didn't find a non paywall link
but here is some of one of the authors other papers
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=%22posthuma+d%22
As someone familiar with the the mechanics I have to say I have no satisfactory answers.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=%22posthuma+d%22
As someone familiar with the the mechanics I have to say I have no satisfactory answers.
Is "Danielle Posthuma" a pseudonym for a large language model?
Worse than that, a real Platform Muppet. The stooge name signals "researching how to control post-sapien organ-machines". The article signals conclusive evidence for applications of the research.
Can we address the ethical and social implications of having most research behind paywalls, unaffordable to most?
Yes, it's called Sci-Hub (the thing the creator of Markdown was driven to suicide for using): https://www.palladiummag.com/2021/09/24/a-world-without-sci-...