Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 4 April 2008 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2008.738
News
'Ruthlessness gene' discovered
Dictatorial behaviour may be partly genetic, study suggests.
Selfish dictators may owe their behaviour partly to their genes, according to a study that claims to have found a genetic link to ruthlessness. The study might help to explain the money-grabbing tendencies of those with a Machiavellian streak — from national dictators down to 'little Hitlers' found in workplaces the world over.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email webadmin@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
Oh, really, this is a very great and amazing discovery ; we can make a wide scan to search on the danger individuals those carry "AVPR1a" or "Ruthlessness" gene and!!!!. May be this wield gene will be more available only in African and Arab populations and Adolf Hitler is only an exception from this rule!!!. I think the financial sources for such kind of research should be directed to more benefit things for Humans, for example for "HIV" drug discoveries not to set more separations between humans according to their genetic structures. However if the research will be like that it will be a jape.
There is need for a huge degree of ruthlessness to come to conclusions as the author/s have arrived at, with genes being attributed to as vague 'phenotypes' as ruthlessness!It will be worthwhile to check the status of the AVPR1a genes in the promoters of this genre of studies. I bet, it will be really long in them!
oh the irony of a Hebrew research center of practicing eugenics.
"If that is true, then apparently ruthless dictators may be motivated not by out-and-out greed but by a simple lack of social skills, which leaves them unable to sense what's expected of them."--- That explains a lot about how the world operates.
Interesting how no mentions of Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao ZeDong (Tse Tung) or that little guy currently running North Korea were made anywhere in Nature's article, the accompaning photo montage, or amongst the admittedly small number of comments to it so far. I do try not to state the obvious, but so I won't. I might suggest there is a gene by which journalists and the first responders to their articles tend to avoid placing left-wing leaders in an unfavorable light? Stalin and Mao killed millions upon millions over the years, and did not live as paupers. Kim of North Korea is at this moment a living embodiment of AVPR1. Oh, I correct myself. Robert Mugabe was mentioned (last name only, and no country) in passing near the end of the article. He did use some socialistic catch-phrasing to justify his land and property grabbing policies, as well as purely racial justifications. Perhaps he is not a Socialist in good standing with the author or prior commentators? The apparent hostility that exists among the commentators here towards gene research in general is interesting as well, and to elaborate further on what I suspect their other questionable tendencies and sentiments might be would definitely wear out my welcome, not that I'm assuming there was one up to now. I wonder if there is a gene that controls how much a person adhering to a discredited philosophy may desire to use the various tools of science to smother dissent?
I find myself wondering how this story got from a game that invites sharing of some money that someone decided to call the "dictator" game (but measures a narrow range of behavior embedded in a complex theory of behavior) to Saddam Hussein, Hitler, and other infamous despots. Somehow findings about polymorphisms in an interesting gene that correlate with game results among college students are interpreted as explaining sociopathy. Wow, that's a pretty long stretch. It is not at all clear how this experiment says anything about the infamous sociopaths, since they were not studied, and I'm not sure why we would be speculating about their nonexistent twins. This is volatile stuff, and care in experiment and even more care in interpretation would be a lot wiser than the galloping speculation in this story. Is there some reason to believe the researchers or the reporter know more about members of the sociopathic pantheon than other Nature readers? If not, why is this story pegged to them? This amounts to a tremendously simplistic interpretation of interesting findings, and a story line that actually casts doubt on the credibility of both the reporter and the people quoted in it. This is not a case of spicing up a story for the audience. This is fueling speculative excess for a readership that mainly values evidence. Please be more careful next time.
BTW, I would have preferred to email this comment directly to Michael Hopkin than to post it publicly, but I found no way to do that through the Nature or NPG websites (could not find email or any way to forward to a clearinghouse to get it to him).
To test this theory, would it be possible for someone to submit hair samples from the Clintons?
There is a danger in equating selfish behaviour with dictatorial styles. Dictatorships can only be made possible when a group feels threatened to the point of desperation. The dictatorial leader manipulates this situation and ascends to power. This is clear-cut opportunistic behaviour. The motives may not be selfish in nature. What if, for example, the dictator felt that the country is on the wrong track and that he is the only person to right the wrongs. He may very well feel that his life, independence, and happiness are worth sacrificing for this correction. Perhaps dictators are merely misguided in some cases?
"The researchers don't know the mechanism by which the gene influences behaviour." Ummm...the researchers didn't show that the gene influences human behavior at all. They showed, at best, a correlation between alleles of the gene and how someone plays this game. "Ruthlessness" is a human, culturally mediated concept, not a biological phenotype. It's difficult to even speculate what complex mixture of context-dependent personality traits or mental habits this game is measuring. Where on earth does the link to political figures come from? This is typical sloppy and breathless coverage of human genetics. Nature? Reads like USA Today.
Stalin, it is said, had a slogan commonly translated as: "gratitude is a vice of dogs"
Did they test any direct samples from the dictators or any ruthless people for AVPR1a? How far it is reliable just from a game? They should also test warmongers and anti-social criminals.
Before death takeaway, let's take a hair sample of Castro's beard
This still does not say why nearly all despots and dictators seem to be of small stature. This must also indicate a genetic link. I'm quite small myself but even my daughter-in-law isn't scared of me - there must be something more as well.
The Knafo et al paper has NOTHING to do with dictators! The “dictator game� involves one person deciding on how to split a pot of money between him/herself and another person. It could as well have been called the “decider game� or the “divvying up game� – and that would have avoided all the misunderstanding.
I seems from the end of the article that the study is somewhat not well founded. The participants` response can also be influenced by how deep they are adherent to their faith and factors alike. The points are 1 how big is the correlation between the length of the gene and people`s behavior and 2 can some real dictators` DNA be tested to make proof.
I think there is more of environmental influence than genetic ....guess more excavation is needed in this matter!!
I liked this work but on the side of consequences how to handle a situation when an altruistic person is struck up in a dictatorship situation ! And I think one needs to find if it's effects are more during comfort zone.
The late Lewis Thomas, M.D. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Thomas) often wrote and speculated on whether there were genes for altruism. I guess Lewis was an optimist and did not consider the alternative-that there was a gene(s) for despotism. Charles Miller Tulane University
One has to wonder about additional characteristics of dictators that are not addressed in this type of study. Leaders have to be far more complex than a few polymorphisms. It may be much simpler for the dictator's henchmen. A future dictator may want to look for individuals with short AVPR1a's for future Gestapo or KGB agents. A more socially useful speculation about the use of AVPR1a and other genes that might have something to do with "dictatorial behavior" could be to look at families where there are intergenerational examples of abusive behavior. Nonetheless, the whole idea of prospective genotyping for behavioral characteristics is scary.
The most advanced biologists have recognized very long ago that all individual traits, (including behavioral traits), of all living organisms, develop ontogenetically, (in the individual organism), under inseparable (!) effects of both (!) genes & environmeny (nature & nurture). So what else is new???
Ruthlessness and/or dictatorial attitude are different from selfishness of an individual. It is interesting to know that a gene for selfishness is discovered by the researchers. However, the researchers need not equate selfishness with ruthlessness and quote some famous personalities for it.
Why is "Nature" hyping this rather silly little study? Why throw in the names of Mobutu and so on when all the researchers have (reportedly) shown is that a genetic feature is associated with how one plays a rather simple game. To talk about the discovery of the "dictator" gene based on this study is highly misleading. This is sensation mongering and cheap publicity. Someone in the study group seems to have an old friend in "Nature".
To find a gene doesn't necessarily gives an explanation or a solution, in this case to 'ruthlessness'. Remember the complexity of gene expression, for example from a "epigenetic" point of view. Sometimes in science we try to simplify too much and this can be misleading.
I see a lot of criticism but none of the commentators suggested a better experiment to test for selfish behavior. I enjoy reading about these social studies and I think it makes sense to take them to the next level by looking for a link with certain genetic polymorphisms. Some people might be afraid this leads to genetic discrimination; I see a potential for a deeper understanding of what makes us individuals.