Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Genetic determinism, essentialism and reductionism: semantic clarity for contested science

Abstract

Research linking genetic differences with human social and behavioural phenotypes has long been controversial. Frequently, debates about the ethical, social and legal implications of this area of research centre on questions about whether studies overtly or covertly perpetuate genetic determinism, genetic essentialism and/or genetic reductionism. Given the prominent role of the ‘-isms’ in scientific discourse and criticism, it is important for there to be consensus and clarity about the meaning of these terms. Here, the author integrates scholarship from psychology, genetics and philosophy of science to provide accessible definitions of genetic determinism, genetic reductionism and genetic essentialism. The author provides linguistic and visual examples of determinism, reductionism and essentialism in science and popular culture, discusses common misconceptions and concludes with recommendations for science communication.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Alternative visualization of the same data implies less or more genetic determinism.
Fig. 2: Anti-essentialist representation of genetic variation.

References

  1. Parens, E. The inflated promise of genomic medicine. Scientific American https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-inflated-promise-of-genomic-medicine/ (2020).

  2. Panofsky, A. Misbehaving Science (Univ. of Chicago Press, 2014).

  3. Polderman, T. J. C. et al. Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies. Nat. Genet. 47, 702–709 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Jensen, A. How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement. Harv. Educ. Rev. 39, 1–123 (1969).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Murray, C. Human Diversity: The Biology of Gender, Race, and Class (Twelve, 2020).

  6. Belsky, D. W. & Harden, K. P. Phenotypic annotation: using polygenic scores to translate discoveries from genome-wide association studies from the top down. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 28, 82–90 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Visscher, P. M. et al. 10 years of GWAS discovery: biology, function, and translation. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 101, 5–22 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Martschenko, D. O., Domingue, B. W., Matthews, L. J. & Trejo, S. FoGS provides a public FAQ repository for social and behavioral genomic discoveries. Nat. Genet. 53, 1272–1274 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Freese, J. The arrival of social science genomics. Contemp. Sociol. 47, 524–536 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Salganik, M. J. et al. Measuring the predictability of life outcomes with a scientific mass collaboration. Peoc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 8398–8403 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Okbay, A. et al. Polygenic prediction of educational attainment within and between families from genome-wide association analyses in 3 million individuals. Nat. Genet. 1–13 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-022-01016-z (2022).

  12. Comfort, N. Genetic determinism rides again. Nature 561, 461–463 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Hoefer, C. Causal determinism. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/determinism-causal (2016).

  14. Block, N. How heritability misleads about race. Cognition 56, 99–128 (1995).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Woodward, J. Causation in biology: stability, specificity, and the choice of levels of explanation. Biol. Philos. 25, 287–318 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. McKusick, V. A. Ellis–van Creveld syndrome and the Amish. Nat. Genet. 24, 203–204 (2000).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Kendler, K. S. “A gene for …”: the nature of gene action in psychiatric disorders. AJP 162, 1243–1252 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Visscher, P. M., Hill, W. G. & Wray, N. R. Heritability in the genomics era — concepts and misconceptions. Nat. Rev. Genet. 9, 255–266 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Heath, A. C. et al. Education policy and the heritability of educational attainment. Nature 314, 734–736 (1985).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Burgoyne, A. P. et al. Can a brief intervention alter genetic and environmental influences on psychological traits? An experimental behavioral genetics approach. Learn. Motiv. 72, 101683 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Raffington, L. et al. An in-laboratory stressor reveals unique genetic variation in child cortisol output. Dev. Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001393 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Madole, J. W. & Harden, K. P. Building causal knowledge in behavior genetics. Behav. Brain Sci. 1–76 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X22000681 (2022).

  23. Williams, S. C. P. Genes don’t just influence your IQ — they determine how well you do in school. Science https://doi.org/10.1126/article.22329 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Regalado, A. Forecasts of genetic fate just got a lot more accurate. MIT Technology Review https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/02/21/241168/forecasts-of-genetic-fate-just-got-a-lot-more-accurate/ (2018).

  25. Herd, P. et al. Genes, gender inequality, and educational attainment. Am. Sociol. Rev. 84, 1069–1098 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Plomin, R. & von Stumm, S. The new genetics of intelligence. Nat. Rev. Genet. 19, 148–159 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Weissgerber, T. L., Milic, N. M., Winham, S. J. & Garovic, V. D. Beyond bar and line graphs: time for a new data presentation paradigm. PLoS Biol. 13, e1002128 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Kevles, D. J. In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity (Harvard Univ. Press, 1998).

  29. Wedow, R., Martschenko, D. O. & Trejo, S. Scientists must consider the risk of racist misappropriation of research. Scientific American https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-must-consider-the-risk-of-racist-misappropriation-of-research/ (2022).

  30. Hochschild, J. Genomic Politics: How the Revolution in Genomic Science is Shaping American Society (Oxford Univ. Press, 2021).

  31. Shostak, S., Freese, J., Link, B. G. & Phelan, J. C. The politics of the gene: social status and beliefs about genetics for individual outcomes. Soc. Psychol. Q. 72, 77–93 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Rothwell, J. Experiment shows conservatives more willing to share wealth than they say. New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/13/upshot/trump-supporters-experiment-inequality.html (2020).

  33. Willoughby, E. A. et al. Free will, determinism, and intuitive judgments about the heritability of behavior. Behav. Genet. 49, 136–153 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Carver, R. B., Castéra, J., Gericke, N., Evangelista, N. A. M. & El-Hani, C. N. Young adults’ belief in genetic determinism, and knowledge and attitudes towards modern genetics and genomics: the PUGGS questionnaire. PLoS One 12, e0169808 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Medin, D. L. & Ortony, A. in Similarity and Analogical Reasoning 179–195 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1989). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511529863.009.

  36. Keller, J. In genes we trust: the biological component of psychological essentialism and its relationship to mechanisms of motivated social cognition. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 88, 686–702 (2005).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Gelman, S. A. The Essential Child: Origins of Essentialism in Everyday Thought (Oxford Univ. Press, 2005).

  38. Haslam, N., Rothschild, L. & Ernst, D. Essentialist beliefs about social categories. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 39 (Pt 1), 113–27 (2000).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Tabb, K., Lebowitz, M. S. & Appelbaum, P. S. Behavioral genetics and attributions of moral responsibility. Behav. Genet. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-018-9916-0 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Dar-Nimrod, I. & Heine, S. J. Genetic essentialism: on the deceptive determinism of DNA. Psychol. Bull. 137, 800–818 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Allport, G. W., Clark, K. & Pettigrew, T. The Nature of Prejudice: 25th Anniversary Edition (Basic Books, 1979).

  42. Mandalaywala, T. M. Does essentialism lead to racial prejudice? It is not so Black and White. Adv. Child. Dev. Behav. 59, 195–245 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Andreychik, M. R. & Gill, M. J. Do natural kind beliefs about social groups contribute to prejudice? Distinguishing bio-somatic essentialism from bio-behavioral essentialism, and both of these from entitativity. Group. Process. Intergroup Relat. 18, 454–474 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Mandalaywala, T. M., Amodio, D. M. & Rhodes, M. Essentialism promotes racial prejudice by increasing endorsement of social hierarchies. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 9, 461–469 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Dar-Nimrod, I. & Heine, S. J. Exposure to scientific theories affects women’s math performance. Science 314, 435–435 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Donovan, B. M. et al. Toward a more humane genetics education: learning about the social and quantitative complexities of human genetic variation research could reduce racial bias in adolescent and adult populations. Sci. Educ. 103, 529–560 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Brescoll, V. L., Uhlmann, E. L. & Newman, G. E. The effects of system-justifying motives on endorsement of essentialist explanations for gender differences. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 105, 891–908 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Bailey, A. & Knobe, J. Biological essentialism correlates with (but doesn’t cause?) intergroup bias. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/rx8jc (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Haslam, N. & Levy, S. R. Essentialist beliefs about homosexuality: structure and implications for prejudice. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 32, 471–485 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Verkuyten, M. Discourses about ethnic group (de-)essentialism: oppressive and progressive aspects. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 42, 371–391 (2003).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Carlson, J. & Harris, K. Quantifying and contextualizing the impact of bioRxiv preprints through automated social media audience segmentation. PLoS Biol. 18, e3000860 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Rosenberg, A. Reductionism in a historical science. Philos. Sci. 68, 135–163 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Guze, S. B. Biological psychiatry: is there any other kind? Psychol. Med. 19, 315–323 (1989).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Feldman, M. W. & Riskin, J. Why biology is not destiny. The New York Review of Books https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2022/04/21/why-biology-is-not-destiny-genetic-lottery-kathryn-harden/ (2022).

  55. Kendler, K. S. Toward a philosophical structure for psychiatry. Am. J. Psychiatr. 162, 433-440 (2005).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Muszynski, E. & Malaterre, C. A roadmap to explanatory pluralism: introduction to the topical collection The Biology of Behaviour. Synthese 199, 1777–1789 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Longino, H. E. Studying Human Behavior: How Scientists Investigate Aggression and Sexuality (Univ. of Chicago Press, 2013).

  58. Turkheimer, E. in Levels of Analysis in Psychopathology: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives (eds. Parnas, J., Kendler, K. S. & Zachar, P.) 521–544 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2020). https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108750349.046.

  59. Junger, S. Opinion: Our politics are in our DNA. That’s a good thing. Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/our-politics-are-in-our-dna-thats-a-good-thing/2019/07/05/c4d8579e-984d-11e9-830a-21b9b36b64ad_story.html (2019).

  60. Zimmer, C. Genetic intelligence tests are next to worthless. Atlantic https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/05/genetic-intelligence-tests-are-next-to-worthless/561392/ (2018).

  61. Keles, B., McCrae, N. & Grealish, A. A systematic review: the influence of social media on depression, anxiety and psychological distress in adolescents. Int. J. Adolesc. Youth 25, 79–93 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Jencks, C. Inequality: A Reassessment of the Effect of Family and Schooling in America (Basic Books, 1972).

  63. Demange, P. et al. Investigating the genetic architecture of noncognitive skills using GWAS-by-subtraction. Nat. Genet. 53, 35–44 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Rogers, A. Star neuroscientist Tom Insel leaves the Google-spawned Verily for … a startup? Wired https://www.wired.com/2017/05/star-neuroscientist-tom-insel-leaves-google-spawned-verily-startup (2017).

  65. Lewis, A. C. F. et al. Getting genetic ancestry right for science and society. Science 376, 250–252 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

K.P.H. is supported by a grant R01HD092548 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). She is a Faculty Research Associate of the Population Research Center at the University of Texas at Austin, which is supported by NIH grant P2CHD042849 from NIH/NICHD.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K. Paige Harden.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Reviews Genetics thanks Abdel Abdellaoui, Peter M. Visscher and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Harden, K.P. Genetic determinism, essentialism and reductionism: semantic clarity for contested science. Nat Rev Genet (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-022-00537-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-022-00537-x

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing