Genetic analysis identifies molecular systems and biological pathways associated with household income, 2019, Hill et al

Not a recommendation. They are trying to find genetic explanations why some people have more money than others in the UK.

Also, it's a pre-print so hasn't been peer reviewed.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/573691v1.full

 

It's a pretty fascinating topic and I don't find the result particularly surprising: certain genes having a weak link to intelligence which itself has a weak link with socio-economic position. The trouble with this area is that everybody has their own axe to grind - in particular those who like to argue that any genetic influence on intelligence means that attempts to build a fairer education system are doomed to fail. This Twitter fisking of Toby Young is very good on the topic as applied to education.

 

The Q that I took from this was different: whether researchers are looking at / pencilled in looking at the affect of ME on the genome/DNA in ways analogous to this article. I guess Ron Davis etc are, but my ignorance forces me to ask the question ignorantly to avoid making assumptions.

I had seen this overview of it: https://www.sciencealert.com/being-...-health-it-changes-as-many-as-one-in-13-genes

I took it less as causation of poverty, but also as damage to/reaction in genome/DNA from reaction to persistent stressors. That's what interested me regarding ME.

My ignorant guesswork would wonder whether the damage done to us is not just 'the damage', but our bodies' reactions to the particular ongoing, run away nature of the stressors (whether they are immuno, neuro, whatever).

 

I don't think the GWAS study in the paper has anything to do with gene expression changes due to things like gene silencing by methylation. Illnesses and trauma do not affect gene sequences themselves. There has been speculation that changes like methylation might be heritable but I remain sceptical that that has any real impact on our lives.

Although the relevant sentence in the abstract is oddly worded it sounds as if they think they are picking up genes that might relate more to rates of mental illness rather than measures of intelligence. Ifthere are genetic risk factors for mental illness it would be pretty surprising if they did not associated with lower socioeconomic status - mentally ill people tend not to get rich.

 

Could environmental factors influence genes like this? A few generations of poor diet due to poverty and higher air pollution in poorer areas for example.

 

There does not seem any sensible reason why genes should be susceptible to methylation as a result of poor diet in such a way as to produce an adverse effect in further generations. This sounds to me like a very illogical myth that has been propagated by politically minded people, including people interested in the holocaust if I remember rightly. As far as I know there is no decent evidence for it.

And the paper at the top has nothing to do with that anyway because it is just looking at the gene, not a modification of its methylation status. It is about the way our genes may influence our social status, not the other way around.

 

Thank you, my knowledge on this subject is almost non existent so I was curious if anything like that were possible. It’s interesting to know that it’s not.

 

I would like to compete with you - I'm sure I know less about this

Thanks @Andy @Londinium @Jonathan Edwards @Diluted-biscuit

 

Dear god.
People were virtually divided into castes for generations and have stayed stratified so of course there would be differences.
This is like saying there is a genetic component to royalty, of course there is, by cultural design

So this is a weapon to be used to preserve the status quo and even undo progress.

 

This actually makes sense, just the other way around. It's been long-known that hardship changes genetics for several generations.

Seems like conflating cause and effect is really hot in BPS research. I'd even say it makes most of it.

Science defying the scientific method and basic common sense, who the hell thinks this is a good idea?

 

Two favourite lessons from my academic days (this thread reminding of the first, and that then reminding me of the second):

• "Granger Causation" is not sufficient to infer Causation, merely chrono structure. Hence, we always used the phrase that "x Granger causes y" to clarify that correlation is not causation, which may itself be more complex.
  
  • e.g. Christmas Cards 'Granger cause' Christmas. Clearly, the cards do not cause Santa to come, as far as I am aware
• Data can be mined to the point overfitting and reveal false information by chance, especially when data is plentisome - i.e. information can appear to exist in data, when it is merely a coincidence of that data snapshot.
  
  • Best example that stuck with me: a paper datamined a United Nations CD years back for the fun of it. It found that Bangladeshi butter production was the best predictor of the US stock market. Try building your fortune off that for same number of periods going forward....

What marvelled me (after being ruined by my trust of unscientific foolery), was how much the ME powerbrokers ignored the basic point within the above: don't ignore everything else you should know. That's just being a pig-headed Luddite/alchemist/carpetbagger.

 

I think hardship may change gene expression but I don't think it changes overall genetics - i.e. the actual genes of the following generation, which is what is being tested in this study.

Overall, I think a) the study is pretty uncontroversial; it would be a surprise if socioeconomic status didn't have a genetic component, especially in a knowledge economy; and (b) it will almost certainly be misunderstood, misquoted and misapplied by various sides.

 

@rvallee , As @Londinium says this is not about gene expression but about the basesequence of DNA . Nobody except Lamarck ( and ironically Darwin 150 years ago) has suggested conditions alter gene sequence in germline.

 

Yup, a number of variables explain/ correlate more usefully to socioeconomic differences/outcomes. You're right about gender and race, for example. But, out of curiosity, did the actual paper control for them? I can't read it.

Regardless of the actual science, I think the mixed reaction to this kind of work is because we can either have

1. worries about eugenic-esque excuses for the worst versions of individualistic meritocracy (which is usually more to do with protecting interests than capitalism, despite feigning otherwise) or
   
2. optimism that comes from broaching the public health idea that poverty perpetuates ongoing harm and poverty is not a moral phenomenon

Often it's less about the results and more who will use or abuse the seed ideas.

 

My history is a little rusty (and incomplete) but hasn't history shown us that eventually someone will always come along and misuse such thing?

It's just such 'convenient' information to have if you are of a certain mindset.

Saves all the tedious, and time consuming, need to make it up.