Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:12:23.902Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Biometric and developmental gene–environment interactions: Looking back, moving forward

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2007

James Tabery
James Tabery*
Affiliation:
University of Utah
*
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: James Tabery, Department of Philosophy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112; E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A history of research on gene–environment interaction (G × E) is provided in this article, revealing the fact that there have actually been two distinct concepts of G × E since the very origins of this research. R. A. Fisher introduced what I call the biometric concept of G × E (G × EB), whereas Lancelot Hogben introduced what I call the developmental concept of G × E (G × ED). Much of the subsequent history of research on G × E has largely consisted of the separate legacies of these separate concepts, along with the (sometimes acrimonious) disputes that have arisen time and again when employers of each have argued over the appropriate way to conceptualize the phenomenon. With this history in place, more recent attempts to distinguish between different concepts of G × E are considered, paying particular attention to the commonly made distinction between “statistical interaction” and “interactionism,” and Michael Rutter's distinction between statistical interaction and “the biological concept of interaction.” I argue that the history of the separate legacies of G × EB and G × ED better supports Rutter's analysis of the situation and that this analysis best paves the way for an integrative relationship between the various scientists investigating the place of G × E in the etiology of complex traits.

Type
Research Article
Information
Development and Psychopathology , Volume 19 , Issue 4 , Fall 2007 , pp. 961 - 976
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aby, S. H., & McNamara, M. J. (Eds.). (1990). The IQ debate: A selective guide to the literature (Vol. 8). New York: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Allen, G. E. (1986). The Eugenics Record Office, Cold Spring Harbor, 1910–1940: An essay in institutional history. Osiris, 2, 225–264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bennett, J. H. (Ed.). (1983). Natural selection, heredity, and eugenics: Including selected correspondence of R. A. Fisher with Leonard Darwin and others. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Block, N. J., & Dworkin, G. (Eds.). (1976). The IQ controversy: Critical readings. London: Quartet Books.Google Scholar
Bouchard, T. J., & Segal, N. L. (1985). Environment and IQ. In Wolman, B. B. (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence: Theories, measurements, and applications (pp. 391–464). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Box, J. F. (1978). R. A. Fisher: The life of a scientist. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2006). Gene–environment interactions in psychiatry: Joining forces with neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 7, 583–590.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caspi, A., McClay, J., Moffitt, T. E., Mill, J., Martin, J., Craig, I. W., et al. (2002). Role of genotype in the cycle of violence in maltreated children. Science, 297, 851–854.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooper, R. M., & Zubek, J. P. (1958). Effects of enriched and restricted early environments on the learning ability of bright and dull rats. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 12, 159–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darlington, C. (1976). Letter to G. P. Wells, June 6. In Lancelot Hogben papers (pp. 44). Birmingham, AL: University of Birmingham Library, Special Collections.Google Scholar
Farahany, N., & Bernet, W. (2006). Behavioural genetics in criminal cases: Past, present, and future. Genomics, Society and Policy, 2, 72–79.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. W., & Lewontin, R. C. (1975). The heritability hang-up. Science, 190, 1163–1168.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fisher, R. A. (1918). The correlation between relatives on the supposition of Mendelian inheritance. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 52, 399–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1925). Statistical methods for research workers. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd Ltd.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1933). Fisher papers (MS 0013, Series 1). Adelaide, Australia: University of Adelaide, Barr Smith Library. Available online at R. A. Fisher Digital Archive: www.adelaide.edu.au/library/special/digital/fisher/Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A., & Mackenzie, W. A. (1923). Studies in crop variation. II. The manurial response of different potato varieties. Journal of Agricultural Science, 13, 311–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenland, S., & Rothman, K. J. (1998). Concepts of interaction. In Rothman, K. J. & Greenland, S. (Eds.), Modern epidemiology (2nd ed., pp. 329–342). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott–Raven.Google Scholar
Gurdon, J. B., & Hopwood, N. (2000). The introduction of Xenopus laevis into developmental biology: Of empire, pregnancy testing and ribosomal genes. International Journal of Developmental Biology, 44, 43–50.Google ScholarPubMed
Hagen, J. (2003). The statistical frame of mind in systematic biology from Quantitative Zoology to Biometry. Journal of the History of Biology, 36, 353–384.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamer, D. (2002). Rethinking behavior genetics. Science, 298, 71–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hebb, D. O. (1947). The effects of early experience on problem solving at maturity. American Psychologist, 2, 306–307.Google Scholar
Hebb, D. O. (1949). The organization of behavior. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Hebb, D. O., & Williams, K. (1946). A method of rating animal intelligence. Journal of General Psychology, 34, 59–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hogben, L. (1932). Genetic principles in medicine and social science. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Hogben, L. (1933). Nature and nurture. The William Withering memorial lectures. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Hogben, L. (1937). Mathematics for the million. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Hogben, L. (1938). Science for the citizen: A self-educator based on the social background of scientific discovery. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Hogben, L. (1976). Lancelot Hogben papers. Birmingham, AL: University of Birmingham, Special Collections.Google Scholar
Hogben, L. (1998). Lancelot Hogben, scientific humanist: An unauthorized autobiography. Suffolk: Merlin Press.Google Scholar
Jensen, A. R. (1969). How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement? Harvard Educational Review, 39, 1–123..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, A. R. (1973). Educability and group differences. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Kendler, K. S. (2005). Psychiatric genetics: A methodologic critique. American Journal of Psychiatry, 162, 3–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kevles, D. J. (1995). In the name of eugenics: Genetics and the uses of human heredity (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Krafka, J. (1920). The effect of temperature upon facet number in the bar-eyed mutant of Drosophila. Journal of General Physiology, 2, 409–464.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Layzer, D. (1972). Science or superstition? (A physical scientist looks at the IQ controversy.) Cognition, 1, 265–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewontin, R. C. (1974). The analysis of variance and the analysis of causes. American Journal of Human Genetics, 26, 400–411.Google ScholarPubMed
Lush, J. L. (1937). Animal breeding plans. Ames, IA: Collegiate Press.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, D. A. (1981). Statistics in Britain: 1865–1930, the social construction of scientific knowledge. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Mazumdar, P. M. H. (1992). Eugenics, human genetics, and human failings: The eugenics society, its sources and its critics in Britain. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mitchell, S. (2003). Biological complexity and integrative pluralism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno, J. D. (2003). Neuroethics: An agenda for neuroscience and society. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4, 149–153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parens, E. (2004). Genetic differences and human identities: On why talking about behavioral genetics is important and difficult. Hastings Center Report, Supplement 34, S1–S36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plomin, R. (1990). Nature and nurture: An introduction to human behavioral genetics. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
Plomin, R., DeFries, J. C., & Loehlin, J. C. (1977). Genotype–environment interaction and correlation in the analysis of human behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 309–322.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plomin, R., & Hershberger, S. (1991). Genotype–environment interaction. In Wachs, T. D. & Plomin, R. (Eds.), Conceptualization and measurement of organism–environment interaction (pp. 29–43). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, T. M. (2004). Karl Pearson: The scientific life in a statistical age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Provine, W. B. (2001). The origins of theoretical population genetics. (2nd ed.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothman, K. J., Greenland, S., & Walker, A. (1980). Concepts of interaction. American Journal of Epidemiology, 112, 467–470.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rutter, M. (2006). Genes and behavior: Nature–nurture interplay explained. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rutter, M., & Pickles, A. (1991). Person–environment interactions: Concepts, mechanisms, and implications for data analysis. In Plomin, R. & Wachs, T. D. (Eds.), Conceptualization and measurement of organism–environment interaction (pp. 105–141). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarkar, S. (1996). Lancelot Hogben, 1895–1975. Genetics, 142, 655–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scarr, S. (1995). Commentary on Gottlieb's “Some conceptual deficiencies in ‘developmental’ behavior genetics.” Human Development, 38, 154–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffner, K. F. (2006). Reduction: The Cheshire cat problem and a return to roots. Synthese, 151, 377–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sesardic, N. (2005). Making sense of heritability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, G. G., Roe, A., & Lewontin, R. C. (1960). Quantitative zoology (Revised ed.). New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.Google Scholar
Soloway, R. A. (1990). Demography and degeneration: Eugenics and the declining birthrate in twentieth-century Britain. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Surbey, M. K. (1994). Discussion: Why expect a horse to fly?, reply to Wahlsten. Canadian Psychology, 35, 261–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tabery, J. (2004). The “evolutionary synthesis” of George Udny Yule. Journal of the History of Biology, 37, 73–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tabery, J. (2006). Looking back on Lancelot's laughter: The Lancelot Thomas Hogben Papers, University of Birmingham, Special Collections. The Mendel Newsletter, 15, 10–17.Google Scholar
Thompson, E. A. (1990). R.A. Fisher's contributions to genetical statistics. Biometrics, 46, 905–914.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vreeke, G.-J. (2000). Nature, nurture and the future of the analysis of variance. Human Development, 43, 32–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waddington, C. H. (1957). The strategy of the genes: A discussion of some aspects of theoretical biology. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Wagman, P. (1973, November 6). The brains do battle in I.Q. controversy. The Boston Phoenix, 18, 28.Google Scholar
Wasserman, D. (2004). Is there value in identifying individual genetic predispositions to violence? Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 32, 24–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wells, G. P. (1978). Lancelot Thomas Hogben. Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society of London, 24, 183–221.Google ScholarPubMed
Werskey, G. (1978). The visible college: The collective biography of British scientific socialists of the 1930s. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Yates, F., & Mather, K. (1963). Ronald Aylmer Fisher. Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society of London, 9, 91–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yule, G. U. (1902). Mendel's laws and their probable relations to intra-racial heredity. The New Phytologist, 1, 193–207, 222–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar