The heritability fallacy

Primer

David S. Moore, David Shenk

Published Online: Dec 01 2016

DOI: 10.1002/wcs.1400

Full article on Wiley Online Library: HTML PDF

Can't access this content? Tell your librarian.

The term ‘heritability,’ as it is used today in human behavioral genetics, is one of the most misleading in the history of science. Contrary to popular belief, the measurable heritability of a trait does not tell us how ‘genetically inheritable’ that trait is. Further, it does not inform us about what causes a trait, the relative influence of genes in the development of a trait, or the relative influence of the environment in the development of a trait. Because we already know that genetic factors have significant influence on the development of all human traits, measures of heritability are of little value, except in very rare cases. We, therefore, suggest that continued use of the term does enormous damage to the public understanding of how human beings develop their individual traits and identities. WIREs Cogn Sci 2017, 8:e1400. doi: 10.1002/wcs.1400 This article is categorized under: Cognitive Biology > Genes and Environment Neuroscience > Development

Lewontin's thought experiment. Genetically variable seeds that develop in controlled environments grow to varying heights. The heritability of height in both the (a) and (b) panels is 100%, because all plants in each panel are exposed to the same environment; thus, all of the variation in height (within a panel) is accounted for by genetic variation. Despite height being 100% heritable in both the left panel and the right panel, plants’ heights are still influenced by the quality of the nutrients they encounter in their environments; mature plants that develop in a deficient nutrient solution (b) are shorter, on average, than are mature plants that develop in a normal nutrient solution (a). Source: http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/block/papers/plants.gif) and Lewontin.

[ Normal View | Magnified View ]

Natural variability in human eye colors. Source: Sturm and Frudakis.

[ Normal View | Magnified View ]

An illustration of why it makes little sense to attempt to quantify the relative importance of two different factors that interact with one another to produce an outcome. Because genetic and nongenetic factors interact with one another to produce phenotypes, it is not possible to accurately assess the relative importance of their contributions to the phenotypes they produce. Source: Keller.

[ Normal View | Magnified View ]

Monozygotic (‘identical’) twins often share a placenta (a), whereas, dizygotic (‘fraternal’) twins never share a placenta (b). As a result, most monozygotic twins develop in prenatal environments that are more similar than are the prenatal environments in which dizygotic twins develop. Source: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/217570/dizygotic‐twin.

[ Normal View | Magnified View ]

References

Lush, JL. Animal Breeding Plans. Ames, IA: Iowa State College Press; 1937.
Feldman, MW. Heritability: Some theoretical ambiguities. In: Keller, E, Lloyd, E, eds. Keywords in Evolutionary Biology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1992.
Sturm, RA, Frudakis, TN. Eye colour: portals into pigmentation genes and ancestry. Trends Genet 2004, 20:327–332.
Wade, N. The twists and turns of history, and of DNA. New York Times 2006; 12.
Barr, R. ‘Born criminals’ may be just that: Study cites inherited traits. The Los Angeles Times 1985.
Cookson, C. Cheating genes play large role in female infidelity. The Financial Times 2004; 24.
Ridley, M. Nature via Nurture: Genes, Experience and What Makes Us Human. New York: Harper Collins; 2003.
Lewontin, RC. Annotation: the analysis of variance and the analysis of causes. Am J Hum Genet 1974, 26:400–411.
Lewontin, R. Race and intelligence. Bull At Sci 1970, 26:2–8.
Melnick, M, Myrianthopoulos, NC, Christian, JC. The effects of chorion type on variation in IQ in the NCPP twin population. Am J Hum Genet 1978, 30:425–433.
Sokol, DK, Moore, CA, Rose, RJ, Williams, CJ, Reed, T, Christian, JC. Intrapair differences in personality and cognitive ability among young monozygotic twins distinguished by chorion type. Behav Genet 1995, 25:457–466.
Scarr, S, McCartney, K. How people make their own environments: a theory of genotype greater than environment effects. Child Dev 1983, 54:424–435.
Fosse, R, Joseph, J, Richardson, K. A critical assessment of the equal‐environment assumption of the twin method for schizophrenia. Front Psychiatry 2015, 6:62.
Hettema, JM, Neale, MC, Kendler, KS. Physical similarity and the equal‐environment assumption in twin studies of psychiatric disorders. Behav Genet 1995, 25:327–335.
Joseph, J. The Trouble with Twin Studies: A Reassessment of Twin Research in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. New York: Routledge; 2015.
Richardson, K, Norgate, S. The equal environments assumption of classical twin studies may not hold. Br J Educ Psychol 2005, 75:339–350.
Turkheimer, E, Haley, A, Waldron, M, D`Onofrio, B, Gottesman, II. Socioeconomic status modifies heritability of IQ in young children. Psychol Sci 2003, 14:623–628.
Bateson, P. Behavioral development and Darwinian Evolution. In: Oyama, S, Griffiths, P, Gray, R, eds. Cycles of Contingency: Developmental Systems and Evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2001.
Schwekendiek, D. Height and weight differences between North and South Korea. J Biosoc Sci 2009, 41:51–55.
Johnson, W, Turkheimer, E, Gottesman, II, Bouchard, TJ Jr. Beyond heritability: twin studies in behavioral research. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 2010, 18:217–220.
Moore, DS. A very little bit of knowledge: re‐evaluating the meaning of the heritability of IQ. Hum Dev 2006, 49:347–353.
Moore, DS. Behavioral genetics, genetics, %26 epigenetics. In: Zelazo, PD, ed. Oxford Handbook of Developmental Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press; 2013.
Griffiths, PE, Gray, RD. Developmental systems and evolutionary explanation. J Philos 1994, 91:277–304.
Lickliter, R, Honeycutt, H. Developmental dynamics: toward a biologically plausible evolutionary psychology. Psychol Bull 2003, 129:819–835.
Odling‐Smee, FJ, Laland, KN, Feldman, MW. Niche Construction: The Neglected Process in Evolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2013.
West, MJ, King, AP. Settling nature and nurture into an ontogenetic niche. Dev Psychobiol 1987, 20:549–562.
Walton, KD, Harding, S, Anschel, D, Harris, YT, Llinas, R. The effects of microgravity on the development of surface righting in rats. J Physiol 2005, 565:593–608.
Keller, L, Ross, KG. Phenotypic plasticity and “cultural transmission” of alternative social organization in the fire ant Solenopsis invicta. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 1993, 33:121–129.
Gitonga, VW, Koning‐Boucoiran, CF, Verlinden, K, Dolstra, O, Visser, RG, Maliepaard, C, Krens, FA. Genetic variation, heritability and genotype by environment interaction of morphological traits in a tetraploid rose population. BMC Genet 2014, 15:146.
Keller, E. The Mirage of a Space Between Nature and Nurture. Durham, NC: Duke University Press; 2010.
Guo, SW. Gene‐environment interaction and the mapping of complex traits: some statistical models and their implications. Hum Hered 2000, 50:286–303.
Moore, DS. The Dependent Gene: The Fallacy of “nature vs. nurture”. New York: Times Books/Henry Holt %26 Co; 2002.
Moore, DS. The Developing Genome: An Introduction to Behavioral Epigenetics. New York: Oxford University Press; 2015.

Access to this WIREs title is by subscription only.

Recommend to Your
Librarian Now!

The heritability fallacy

Related Articles

Browse by Topic

Access to this WIREs title is by subscription only.

The latest WIREs articles in your inbox