// blog

Bad Science for Worse Philosophy: The "Ruthlessness" Gene

By Laura Mazer     Apr 8 2008 - 5:39 am

Hebrew University recently completed a study on the genetic basis for “ruthlessness,” and it’s getting some media coverage. Nature included it on their news page, with the flattering headline, “Ruthlessness gene discovered.” The story even made it to the Drudge Report for a day or two, assuring wide-spread attention.

All of this sensational coverage, for a study design that should raise some eyebrows--and some chuckles, if not for the fact that it’s being taken so seriously. Here’s the basic study design: 200+ student volunteers participated in what the study calls the ‘dictator game.’ The game is supposed to determine if the volunteer behaves like a ruthless dictator. Students (a class of individuals notoriously in need of funds) are given 50 shekels (about 14 dollars) and told they have the option of keeping the money, or give it to someone they will never meet, for no particular reason. That’s it. That’s the test of a dictator. Apparently, people with fewer repeats at their AVPR1a gene tended to give away less money.

There are some problems here, both with methodology and interpretation, which should jump out at the casual reader. The problems begin with equating a student who keeps $14 he has been given in a game with Hitler, Napoleon, and Saddam Hussein (comparisons explicitly drawn in the Nature article). The problems continue with the unfortunately common “one gene, one trait” fallacy of popular genetics. While the pea plants Mendel first tested his theory of genetics on had a number of traits- height, flower color, etc- which were controlled by one gene, human beings have very few. Not only are diseases like cancer usually caused by multiple genes, not all genes are expressed identically in different people. Environmental factors can play a huge role.

This particular poor study design, with its sensationalistic and scientifically misleading press coverage, joins numerous other attempts to attribute complex character traits to genetic chance, rather than personal choice. The danger from this study does not stem from the fact that the ‘dictator game’ is laughably vague in its implications, or even that the association between a gene of unknown mechanism and an undefined character trait (‘ruthlessness’) is sloppy enough to make even a social scientist blush.

No, the real crime is that this sloppy science is used to “prove” a lack of free will. If a dictator kills and murders (or simply retains $14), he does it because his AVPR1a gene was just too short. He did not choose to overthrow a country and keep its people in chains. And- the implication is obvious- if he did not choose it, if he was born to that destiny, how can we condemn him?

This is biological determinism: the notion that our actions and our character are predetermined by our genetic make-up. This theory, whether it takes the form of the simplistic conclusions of the ‘ruthlessness’ study, or more complex genetic analyses, renders us free from fault, free from responsibility, and free from the possibility of choosing to change. Punishment becomes unjust, morality becomes meaningless, and eugenics or criminal convictions based on genetics become logical possibilities. This is not merely sloppy science. It is sloppy science used to defend a terrifying philosophy.

<!--EndFragment-->

Bookmark/Search this post with:
4 Comments

Comments

The use of the dictator game to measure altruism is fairly well accepted as a measure. The logic is as follows, if humans were only concerned with their immediate personal gains (an assumption often used in behavioral economics), they would always refrain from sharing in this game. As humans rarely refrain from sharing in this game, we can safely say that humans are not only concerned with their own *personal* gain, but also with the wealth of others. Therefore, humans are altruistic (which should be defined as helping another at a cost to one's self, not as defined in the comments above as "helping someone in need").

The author appears to not understand the context in which this science was done. It is not, in any way, that they did this science to demonstrate a gene for ruthlessness (it is unfortunate that the journalists ever used this term). This science is investigating WHY people are altruistic. If there is a genetic component, then we expect the gene to be correlated with levels of altruism. This is what they observed. This does not, in any way, mean that your altruistic behavior is determined 100% be your genes. I am not clear as to why you assume a study that states "a gene (polymorphism) is associated with altruism" is the same as stating "all altruistic behavior is caused by this (or any) gene(s)."

Now, don't get me wrong, I see many issues with this study. The problem is not, however, how they measured altruism. The problem is one that plagues all genetic association studies: repeatability. Their study needs to be reproduced in different groups of people, with large sample sizes, to conclusively demonstrate that the AVPR1A repeat significantly affects human behavior. I research human genetics and can say that there is additional evidence that this repeat is an important modifier of human behavior. This study can be taken as supporting evidence.

Submitted by Anonymous on 7 February, 2010.

For the record, the researchers were actually trying to test generosity, not ruthlessness. The "ruthlessness" angle was sensationalized by the writers of Nature magazine, and the name stuck.

This experiment and its implications has been blown way out of proportion to the findings, all because of bad journalism, not bad science.

Submitted by Ed (not verified) on 22 July, 2008.

Thank you!

I have not had time to comment because I am ruthlessly finishing up the semester in neuropsychology.

If one wants to demonstrate that a certain gene is linked to a certain behavioral trait, one must understand the mechanism of the gene and the protein(s) that it makes or the brain structure that it contributes to, and also demonstrate that the structure is altered in such a way that the particular trait is determined.

Certain behavioral traits are probably influenced by certain genes, but all are most certainly polygenic and the gene-by-gene interactions are often quite complex. Neuroscientists are having great difficulty demonstrating gene-to-behavior connections for definable brain differences that lead to behavior (like depression). Ruthlessness? There are probably some genetic predispositions, but the behavior itself is complex and defined differently by different people, and as you rightly pointed out, the environmental influences on these choices are also hard to define.

Finally, I am not sure that the experiment actually tested ruthlessness. In fact, it did not even test altruism--because altruism is defined as helping someone in need. We get social benefits from altruism (names on donor lists, etc) but we know we are giving to someone who needs the gift for some reason.

This is really bad science.

Thanks!

Submitted by Elisheva Levin (not verified) on 16 April, 2008.

[...] blue collar scientist wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt [...]

Submitted by » Bad Science for Worse Philosophy: The “Ruthlessness” Gene (not verified) on 8 April, 2008.