Cracking the Code: Genetics, Environment, and the Essence of Human Behavior
We recognize the critical role that social determinants such as socio-economic standing exert on an individual’s life and ultimate outcomes. It is also apparent that there is a genetic facet to every behavior. However, the interplay between biological forces and environmental factors remains an enigma.
This new study aims to decipher these interactions and comprehend their implications for social sciences by employing robust genetic data.
Probing into the intricate web of genetic material and discerning how genes influence human behavior is an astoundingly complex task. However, the advent of extensive genetic data repositories, coupled with sophisticated data analysis techniques, is facilitating this venture.
Dr. Robbee Wedow, serving as an Assistant Professor at Purdue University’s College of Liberal Arts with specializations in sociology and data science, and holding an adjunct position in medical and molecular genetics at the Indiana University School of Medicine, is at the forefront of this exploration. Based at AnalytiXIN/16 Tech in Indianapolis, as Purdue’s pioneer faculty-in-residence, Dr. Wedow is paving the path to unraveling how genetics interplays with socio-environmental factors.
He employs genetic databases to investigate how minuscule gene fragments known as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) influence multifaceted, all-encompassing characteristics such as sexual behavior, educational achievements, socio-economic standing, health practices, and more.
“We are using well-powered genetic data to do more accurate and replicable social science and to explore what might be possible at the intersection of genetic and behavioral science,” explains Robbee Wedow, Assistant Professor, Sociology and Data Science, College of Liberal Arts, Purdue University.
The sequencing of the first human genome in 2003 revealed the true magnitude of genetics. Early geneticists hypothesized that identifying a gene for each trait was merely a case of looking in the right spot.
Nevertheless, DNA bases and genes don’t function like keys on an enormous piano, creating masterpieces that depict human life. Instead, DNA functions more akin to a pipe organ, where regulators and modifiers can alter the pitch of notes, silence them, or amplify them. Factors such as the environment, diet, pollution, life experiences, and other circumstances can modify when and how genes influence certain outcomes, and can even alter which locations in the genomes matter for those outcomes. There isn’t a single gene dictating a behavioral outcome. Biology isn’t fate; it might provide the musical score, but musicians have the liberty to ad-lib and interpret as they perform.
Wedow emphasizes that the core concept is not about genes dictating the course or fate of an individual’s life. Each SNP exerts a minuscule effect on comprehensive outcomes such as educational achievement. The notion of deciphering one’s destiny through genes, akin to the portrayal in the dystopian film “Gattaca” from the 1990s, is far-fetched. Instead, elucidating the genetic aspects of particular behaviors can aid scientists in grasping the subtleties of human behavior.
People often associate genetics exclusively with biology. However, in sociogenomics, the focus is more on harnessing the benefits of this newly acquired, robust data to gain a deeper understanding of the outcomes, or to enable researchers to conduct more precise social science and behavioral research, according to Wedow.
“The social sciences have recently struggled with replicating studies. Oftentimes the sample sizes are too small for rigorous estimates and certainty. That’s where the potential of using these huge banks of genetic data for the social sciences comes in. They help us get a much clearer, more certain look at what’s really going on.”
Understanding genetics is merely the initial phase. An American geneticist in the early 19th century might have drawn correlations between genetics and educational proficiency, concluding that individuals with two X chromosomes generally had lower educational attainment. However, this was not indicative of chromosomes having any direct correlation with education. Instead, this correlation mirrored the societal and gender biases prevalent in that era. Wedow’s research harbors analogous revelations.
“Sociogenomics isn’t necessarily about biology, like some might think,” adds Wedow. “When someone studies cancer genetics, they are studying it because they want to elucidate the biology of cancer; they want to figure out ways to better diagnose it, track it and treat it. But researchers in the field of sociogenomics want to study the genetics in order to do better social science. No one would ever study sociology without considering socioeconomic status and environment. We want to be able to take genetics into account in the same way.”
In Volume 7, Issue 7 of the journal Nature Human Behaviour, Wedow, along with co-corresponding author Andrea Ganna from the University of Helsinki and other co-authors, analyzed 109 survey questions across over 300,000 participants to explore how individuals’ genetics corresponded with whether they responded to specific questions or left them unanswered in surveys conducted in the UK Biobank. While this might seem somewhat esoteric, it addresses a long-standing challenge in the field of sociology.
“How do you know what you don’t know or how someone might have answered a question if they choose not to answer it?” Wedow adds. “It turns out that the genetics of people who either answer the survey question, or do not, overlaps with the genetics of other outcomes like education, income or certain health behaviors.”
This implies that scientists can utilize this category of data to enhance understanding of how individuals who elect not to engage in surveys might also have analogous responses to questions regarding health or social behaviors. Additionally, geneticists can employ the findings of this study to rectify biases in genetic research encompassing behavioral, psychiatric, or medical outcomes.
“We can’t parcel out the signal from the noise yet or causally tease apart the effects of environment from the effects of biology,” Wedow asserts. “We know the genetics correlate with certain outcomes, but we are not at a point where we can say any specific gene causes any one outcome. The effect of each individual gene is small. It’s only in large data sets that we start to get the statistical power to get meaningful, reproducible results. We are using these new exciting, emerging data and tools to revolutionize social science.”
Image Credit: Shutterstock