Lucas Matthews and I substantially revised my SEP entry on Heritability. This version includes discussion of the missing heritability problem and other issues that arise from the use of Genome Wide Association Studies by Behavioral Geneticists.

Research in pharmacogenomics and precision medicine has recently introduced the concept of Polygenic Scores (PGSs), namely, indexes that aggregate the effects that many genetic variants are predicted to have on individual disease risk. The popularity of PGSs is increasing rapidly, but surprisingly little attention has been paid to the idealisations they make about phenotypic development. Indeed, PGSs rely on quantitative genetics models and methods, which involve considerable theoretical assumptions that have been questioned on various grounds. This comes with epistemological and (...) ethical concerns about the use of PGSs in clinical decision-making. In this paper, I investigate to what extent idealisations in genetics models can impact the data gathering and clinical interpretation of genomics findings, particularly the calculation and predictive accuracy of PGSs. Although idealisations are considered ineliminable components of scientific models, they may be legitimate or not depending on the epistemic aims of a model. I thus analyse how various idealisations have been introduced in classical models and progressively readapted throughout the history of genetic theorising. Notably, this process involved important changes in the epistemic purpose of such idealisations, which raises the question of whether they are legitimate in the context of contemporary genomics. (shrink)

This paper explores the interpretation and use of polygenic risk scores (PRSs). We argue that PRSs generally do not directly embody causal information. Nonetheless, they can assist us in tracking other causal relationships concerning genetic effects. Although their purely predictive/correlational use is important, it is this tracking feature that contributes to their potential usefulness in other applications, such as genetic dissection, and their use as controls, which allow us, indirectly, to "see" more clearly the role of environmental variables.

We sympathize with many of the points Burt makes in challenging the value of genetics to advance our understanding of social science. Here, we discuss how recent reflections on epistemic validity in the behavioral sciences can further contribute to a reappraisal of the role of sociogenomics to explain and predict human traits, aptitudes, and achievement.

This commentary seeks to briefly outline a clear-eyed middle ground between Burt's claims that the inclusion of polygenic scores (PGSs) is essentially useless for social science and proponents' vast overstatements and over-interpretations of these scores. Current practice of including PGSs in social science is often wrong but sometimes useful.

In this response, I focus on clarifying my arguments, highlighting consensus, and addressing competing views about the utility of polygenic scores (PGSs) for social science. I also discuss an assortment of expansions to my arguments and suggest alternative approaches. I conclude by reiterating the need for caution and appropriate scientific skepticism.

This commentary emphasizes two problem areas mentioned by Burt. First, that within-family designs do not eradicate stratification confounds. Second, that the linear/additive model of genetic causes of form and variation is not supported by recent progress in molecular biology. It concludes with an appeal for a (biologically and psychologically) more realistic model of such causes.