Eugenics Lite?

Kathryn Paige Harden (University of Texas at Austin and author of The Genetic Lottery: Why DNA Matters for Social Equality) has been accused, by some, of being a covert Eugenicist. Eugenics is the much discredited view, that people (or races) with 'superior' genes naturally dominate those with 'inferior' genetic endowment. Harden refutes the eugenics label. She claims that most scientists accept that the effects of genes on intelligence 'is not nil'. She maintains that how far people (in the US and UK?) go in their formal education is, in part, down to their genes (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/sep/12/kathryn-paige-harden-psychologist-genetics-education-school). Harden also observes that, how far one goes in education, currently has major influences on career opportunities, salaries and health. She says that the initial evidence for a link between genes and formal education attainment, came from twin studies. Monozygotic (identical) twins showed greater similarity in educational attainment than did their dizygotic counterparts. Harden now adds to this body of evidence, the Genome Wide Association Study (GWAS). The GWAS starts by investigating many people with similar genetic ancestries. Tiny differences in their DNA variants are noted that appear to correlate with years of schooling. A new child's DNA is then sequenced and the variants added up to make a 'polygenic score'. The polygenic score is then used to predict how far that person will go in school/college/university. Harden suggests that circa 1000 gene variants, capture 10-15% of the variation in educational attainment. She notes that this is not too different from the impact of family income which accounts for around 11%. Harden also points to distinct measures of non-cognitive personality that may be linked to some of the gene variants. These include characteristics like being 'contientious', 'open to new experiences' etc that can 'help pull people through school'. She suggests that, rather than seeing these as 'good genes' for 'intelligence', the variants should be regarded as those producing behaviours that happen to be correlated with going further in education 'as it is currently constructed'. Harden maintains that she wants to find ways of using knowledge of genetic science, to "build policies and social interventions that (will) create more social equality'. She is unconvinced that many proposed educational interventions work for all people. Most scientists/ members of the public are happy to accept that genes play roles in a person's likelihood of developing a physical (e.g. coronary heart disease) or a mental (e.g. depression) condition. Manifesting the condition, however, also frequently depends on an interplay of genes with environmental factors. The relative contributions of genes and environmental factors, vary from situation to situation and person to person. Both 100% genetic and 100% environmental influences are very unlikely possibilities. It consequently seems reasonable to attempt to assess the (perhaps varied?) influences of genes on education. It should be possible to do this without:- a) going down the eugenics rabbit hole; b) falling again into the trap of believing that Intelligence Quotients (or other measures), are simple predicators of later educational attainment and c) believing that current educational systems cannot be modified, to assess wider ranges of skills and useful attributes.