IPgeneenvironment

=Intersecting processes involving genes and environment=

1. Introduction This session extends perspectives from the previous two sessions—the debate about the changeability of IQ test scores and the possible involvement of multiple voices in the application of knowledge about specific genes—by tracing "intersecting processes"—the sequence of multiple causes building on each other over the individual’s life history. This account of causality permits a number of conclusions about nature-nurture debates:
 * Neither the unchangeability of genes nor the reliability of some gene- or biochemistry-based intervention would prove that the genes are the most significant cause of the behavior or disease that has been occurring in the absence of such treatment.
 * Critics of genetic explanations could dismiss the attribution of an individual’s behavior to genes (or 50% or 80% to genes) as a technically meaningless partitioning of variation without placing themselves at the other pole from genetic determination. That is, they would not have to make the counterclaim that the environment determines behavior or that, if the right environment were found, any desired behavior could be elicited. An intersecting processes account addresses malleability or immalleability of behavioral outcomes without ruling out genetic contributions.
 * Similarly, critics would not need to rest their case on demonstrations that behavioral genetics has been or still is methodologically flawed, on textual deconstructions of the categories and rhetoric employed, or on attributions of political bias to the supporters of behavioral geneticists. These are all interesting, but, in light of an intersecting processes account of the behavior, not necessary for a conceptual critique of genetic determinism.
 * There are multiple points of intervention or engagement that could modify the course of development.

1b. Mini-lecture Intersecting processes in the social origins of mental illness >

2. Precis of Reading The readings complicate the popular idea that human traits can be determined, say 60%, by genes and the opposing idea that the environment shapes most socially significant traits. Make notes on the models of complexities sketched in the readings. > Precis TBA American Psychological Association (2001). "New model of IQ development accounts for ways that even small environmental changes can have a big impact, while still crediting the influence of genes." http://www.apa.org/releases/iqmodel.html (Apr. 15). Paul, D. (1997). "Appendix 5. The history of newborn phenylketonuria screening in the U.S.," in N. A. Holtzman and M. S. Watson (Eds.), Promoting Safe and Effective Genetic Testing in the United States. Washington, DC: NIH-DOE Working Group on the Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications of Human Genome Research, 137-159. Taylor, P. J. (2004). "What can we do? -- Moving debates over genetic determinism in new directions." Science as Culture 13(3): 331-355.

The class activity will go beyond complicating ideas about direct determination of traits to using an "intersecting processes" framework to map out bio-social processes of development of traits. We will start with the history as told by Paul—complete or neaten up secondary task for last session.

3. Activity  =Diagramming of Intersecting Processes= (a teaching activity under development) Peter Taylor, Draft 8 Feb 2004; revised 17 April 2005; revised 6 Nov 2012

Acknowledgement: This unit draws inspiration and some ideas from Matthew Puma’s adaptation of my teaching about intersecting processes in CrCrTh 640 []) during Spring 2002.

Goals for students
1. to understand the development of biomedical and social phenomena in terms of linkages among processes of different kinds and scales that build up over time—genetics, treatment, family and immediate social context, social welfare systems and economics, wider cultural shifts, ….

2. to use graphic organizers to help them visualize such “intersecting processes” and to identify places where detail is missing and where further inquiry is needed.

3. [depending on level of students and prior preparation] to contrast the implications of thinking in terms of direct causation (like spokes going to a hub) with “heterogeneous construction,” my term for the following ideas: “a) Without any superintending constructor or outcome-directed agent, b) many heterogeneous components are linked together, which implies that c) the outcome has multiple contributing causes, and thus d) there are multiple points of intervention or engagement that could modify the course of development. In short, e) causality and agency are distributed, not localized. Moreover, f) construction is a process, that is, the components are linked over time, g) building on what has already been constructed, so that h) it is not the components, but the components in linkage that constitute the causes. Points c) and f–h) together ensure that i) it is difficult to partition relative importance or responsibility for an outcome among the different types of cause (e.g., 80% genetic vs. 20% environmental). Generally, j) there are alternative routes to the same end, and k) construction is "polypotent," that is, things involved in one construction process are implicated in many others. Engaging in a construction process, even in very focused interventions, will have side effects. Finally, points f) and k) mean that l) construction never stops; completed outcomes are less end points than snapshots taken of ongoing, intersecting processes” (Taylor 2001).

Instructions
Pre-session reading: Paul, D. (1997). Appendix 5. The history of newborn phenylketonuria screening in the U.S. __Promoting Safe and Effective Genetic Testing in the United States__. N. A. Holtzman and M. S. Watson. Washington, DC, NIH-DOE Working Group on the Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications of Human Genome Research: 137-159. []

Excerpt from from Taylor (2001 or 2004) on the development of severe depression in a sample of working class women.

Phase A: Mini-lecture to introduce the ideas under goals 1 and 2 and the use of diagrams to identify missing detail (goal 3). Illustrated with diagrams of a) the development of severe depression in a sample of working class women and b) the life-course of a female with PKU detected by neo-natal screening for PKU (based on Paul 1997) and perhaps other cases. Followed by Question & Answer.

Phase B: Following the procedure below, diagram Paul (1997) article with respect to the routinization of neo-natal screening for PKU in the United States. Followed by discussion of potential and limitations of the diagramming activity (for discussion among colleagues or for teaching).
 * 1) Identify important connections mentioned in the article between things in the following categories or strands (open to adaptation): Experience of persons with PKU (condition, care, social support); Advocacy (pro + con); State mandates & regulation; Research; and Wider social context.
 * 2) Arrange the things as well as you can given the information available on parallel strands according to year (from 1930s to 1990s allowing more space for 1960 through 1980).
 * 3) Draw dotted lines to show connections between things.
 * 4) Identify connections about which you want to know more. Use the ideas under goal 3 as a checklist.
 * 5) Note where these instructions were hard to put into practice.

Example of connection: enthusiasm for biomedical prevention of mental retardation over education/social support/rehabilitation of retarded persons (wider social context) and promotion of PKU screening in advance of research on effects of diet (state mandates & regulation/ research).

share products & comment on them on the blog

Phase C (Advanced): Move from developing categories to interconnected strands for the explanation given by a) Dickens and Flynn in APA (2001) for the generation-to-generation increase in IQ test scores; or b) Barker as described in Taylor (2004) for early-life origins of chronic diseases of later life.

include component="page" wikiName="crcrth645" page="IPgeneenvironmenth" editable="1"