Genome-wide analysis identifies molecular systems and 149 genetic loci associated with income, 2019, Hill et al

Andy

Andy

Retired committee member
I'm so glad that such urgently needed research such as this is being done... :mad:
Socioeconomic position (SEP) is a multi-dimensional construct reflecting (and influencing) multiple socio-cultural, physical, and environmental factors. In a sample of 286,301 participants from UK Biobank, we identify 30 (29 previously unreported) independent-loci associated with income. Using a method to meta-analyze data from genetically-correlated traits, we identify an additional 120 income-associated loci. These loci show clear evidence of functionality, with transcriptional differences identified across multiple cortical tissues, and links to GABAergic and serotonergic neurotransmission. By combining our genome wide association study on income with data from eQTL studies and chromatin interactions, 24 genes are prioritized for follow up, 18 of which were previously associated with intelligence. We identify intelligence as one of the likely causal, partly-heritable phenotypes that might bridge the gap between molecular genetic inheritance and phenotypic consequence in terms of income differences. These results indicate that, in modern era Great Britain, genetic effects contribute towards some of the observed socioeconomic inequalities.
Click to expand...
Open access, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-13585-5
 
In a meritocratic society in which income was directly (or, hell, even indirectly) associated with particular traits, like skill, talent and general abilities, this could be moderately useful. Not even accounting for those who, like us, have next to zero income because of circumstances and of course that cannot be accounted for since for the most part the relevant data don't even exist.

Another great example of everything wrong with BPS, this tells nothing about anything but it sure has a lot of lies-damned-lies-and-statistics, interpretation and analysis while pointing at biological things that may or may not be relevant (but very likely are not). Or put another way: ask useless questions, get useless answers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The idea that there is a "Social, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry" sub discipline horrifies me somewhat. (Stuart Ritchie) Those three things seem benign enough until put in the hands of ideologists with a psych degree.

The actual biomedical expertise (sequencing) seems to have come from Addenbrook's in Cambridge. Sad, as that just makes them enablers of the silliness.

And it seems to be the psychiatric brainchild of Edinburgh and Karolinska's psychiatry departments.
 
I actually think this sort of analysis may be very important to any genetic studies of ME.

The biggest problem I see with a GWAS study of ME patients is spurious linkage related to biased recruitment. Biased recruitment might well track to income or other social factors. It would be a huge waste of time if ten years was spent chasing genes that looked to be relevant to ME but were just socio-economic markers. If the UK Biobank knows about these genes they can rapidly identify such spurious links.
 
James Morris-Lent said:
I don't understand the hostility to this sort of research. Why is it wrong to ask this question? Why would we not want information about how society works so as to inform intelligent policymaking? What would be the benefit of banning or suppressing investigations of available data?
Click to expand...
I tried to post an example above in a light hearted manner how data can say one thing, but does the data make common sense? Just because a paper is written with nice big words by important sounding "scientists" with very significant P-values doesn't mean it's right. Why would income relate to genetics? Why would number of cars in a household relate to genetics? Doesn't make sense. For income, if the significant variants are related to disability then you could believe it, but I don't think that is what the authors are saying.

We all on here got excited on the UK Biobank GWAS report by Chris Ponting that turned out to be erroneous relating to P4HA1 and collagen synthesis.
Thread : https://www.s4me.info/threads/analy...erited-component-to-me-cfs-ponting-blog.4529/
Blog : https://mecfsresearchreview.me/2018...emonstrates-an-inherited-component-to-me-cfs/

Even Jen Brea was using this in her tweets


@paolo pointed out in the comments of the blog that the variant that was VERY significant was for ONE person. ONE person only. Chris Ponting agreed.
Reply from Chris Ponting:

Paulo’s points are correct. The issue with respect to the single case individual is exactly why we said that caution is necessary (in particular (c) of the five cautions/caveats). So, yes, even if this were to be a causal variant, then it would be for this one case individual only.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
James Morris-Lent said:
I don't understand the hostility to this sort of research. Why is it wrong to ask this question? Why would we not want information about how society works so as to inform intelligent policymaking? What would be the benefit of banning or suppressing investigations of available data?
Click to expand...


It's late here for me so to answer really briefly on my part. I don't know much about genetic research but it seems to me that searching for this kind of link is not at all the same as finding a link to a genetic disease. With a GD I think you would get pretty immediate feedback if your information was wrong.

Two things about asking such a question. First problem I see is the same as the BPS with their belief in the efficacy of GET. The research was jiggered to provide the answer they were looking for. The second problem is a bit tricky to answer here on the forum but basically do you really think any data is going to lead to intelligent policy being made with regard to income? I'm not even sure anybody knows what that is.

Just an opinion. As I said I don't know much about this type of research. But it sounds like something that can be easily manipulated and there seems to be a great deal of willingness to do so. I would not want social policy to depend on dodgy data.
 
Leonid Schneider is thinking what I'm thinking

The rich-genes study’s last author Ian Deary is psychology professor at the University of Edinburgh, his research field is: ” Human intelligence differences “. In his office, Deary displays a picture of Francis Galton, Victorian statistician and founding father of eugenics, Galton also invented the term.
...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Andy said:
For a highly opinionated (negative) view of this study see https://forbetterscience.com/2019/12/17/bah-humbug/ in which, interestingly, there is a suggestion that the ethical approval may not match the published study.
Click to expand...
Thanks @Andy, that was brilliant. Loved this bit
Now we know for a fact that rich people are rich because of their superior intelligence which is coded in their superior genes. And this is how GWAS works, you decide what trait you want to connect to genes, and you will always succeed:
Click to expand...
 
James Morris-Lent said:
I don't understand the hostility to this sort of research. Why is it wrong to ask this question? Why would we not want information about how society works so as to inform intelligent policymaking? What would be the benefit of banning or suppressing investigations of available data?
Click to expand...

I agree with James here. It may be that people doing this research are covert racists or whatever but it is still reasonable to look at this. Genes will not be the only cause of being rich but they may contribute.

What I find odd is the blanket objection to this sort of study on the grounds that it would lead to unfair treatment of the poor.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
James Morris-Lent said:
I don't understand the hostility to this sort of research. Why is it wrong to ask this question? Why would we not want information about how society works so as to inform intelligent policymaking? What would be the benefit of banning or suppressing investigations of available data?
Click to expand...
Laughing for the sake of laughing (if it doesn´t reach too far).

You are somewhat right, I think, and it isn´t going be helpful to hide any possible informations, or to restrict any discussion. But todays world can´t be seen as the last word in the development of human life. We are even away from behave stable in a natural environment (at least it would be new to me).

The paper might possibly act in a hasty way - if there is the suggestion around that some ppl are in some essential manner better b/c they seem to behave more successful.


I remember slightly some research coming up with bold guesses regarding ME/CFS without announcing that they were doing bold guesses (as far as I know), and patients ended up in getting bad treatments. There have been suggestions around, I would say, "these strange patients" and whatever.

Finally, if I am allowed to say this, humanity cannot be seperated from living together and care for each other to some extend.
 
Jonathan Edwards said:
At the moment we seem to have a politically correct position that everyone is born equal and therefore whether or not you get rich must be a result of whether or not your parents or you can be bothered to get off your backside and do some work. Since a lot of people work hard and still don't get rich that seems to me about as pernicious a culture as one can get.
Click to expand...

I think there is a risk that, just like in the eugenics movement, the importance of inherited genetic factors will be overestimated, while all the other factors will be downplayed. It would be a perfect excuse to NOT examine factors related to income like policy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom