[sidesentists]

I've done a lot of human behavioral genetics research and think there's not a lot more to say about big-picture questions regarding the genome and behavior (people can ignore what's been said but that's a different issue). Genes influence behavior, and so does environment. Both in big ways, and there's extremely complicated dynamic interactions between those systems. There can be big genetic insults to a behavioral system, and big environmental ones. Behavior is often measured crudely, especially in behavioral genetic studies, due to practical constraints, so distinctions that people here might care about don't get made in such studies often. There are a ton of details to flesh out, but I don't think people are going to find genes influence our behavior more than what's been documented. It's just not supported by the evidence -- and people have looked.

Also, even beyond behavior genetics, as neuroscience and genetics research progresses even further, we're going to have to face a bigger question, which is what to do about the fact we can actually intervene to influence behavior even in the face of congenital attributes. Let's say trait X is 80% heritable (they're often not, more like 50%), but you can use CRISPR-esque techniques with viruses, etc., whatever, to change the genome at any age. Think about the ethical and political issues surrounding that. When you can play God, you have the responsibilities of God too; there will be no excuses for altruistic intervention by society.

I'm happy about this article because I've also done research on psychosomatic issues, for lack of a better way of putting it, and this field is really mischaracterized and there is a lot of mob behavior against scientists.