Why people keep writing “Gene for X” cowflop nonsense

I love this post at Genotopia. The ever-interesting Nathaniel Comfort reviews the usual frustrations about “gene for X” thinking, cites a few efforts to turn it back, and then, with some nice meta, concludes that genetic determinism is, well, multifactorial in origin: Genetic determinism, then, is not monocausal. It has many sources, including sensationalism, ambition, […]

Continue reading →

Tiger Parenting “a very exciting way to understand studying and piano lessons”.

To Joshua Rothman, over at The New Yorker, “The Triple Package” might not be convincing as an argument about “the rise and fall of cultural groups in America,” but it’s valuable in another way: it offers a fascinating window onto a particular interpretation of family life. In this interpretation, parents see themselves as dangerous risk-takers […]

Continue reading →

Will the FDA Regulate Just Genetic Risk Data, or All Risk Data?

The latest in the 23andme versus FDA saga, in which the FDA halted 23andme from offering health-risk analyses of the genotyping service the company sells, comes in a commentary published yesterday in Nature. The commentary’s authors, Robert Green of Harvard Medical School and Nita Farahany of Duke Law School, address a key question raised by the FDA’s […]

Continue reading →

Jerry Coyne Mucks Up and Misreads “Die, Selfish Gene, Die”

Below is a corrective comment I left below Jerry Coyne’s second of two posts (his first is here) critiquing “Die, Selfish Gene, Die,” my recent article in Aeon about complaints from some biologists that the “Selfish Gene” framing of genetics and evolution was hindering both public and scientific understanding of genetics and evolution. This is rather a tempest […]

Continue reading →