Talk:Genetic determinism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Genetics This article is part of WikiProject Genetics, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to genetics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this page, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating.
WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
Start This page has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance assessment scale


Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject
MCB Portal
This article is within the scope of the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information. The WikiProject's current monthly collaboration is focused on improving Restriction enzyme.

Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. Click here for an overview of how to rate this article.

[edit] edit

I added a few things to the article: NPOV dispute, added a link to Mind-Body problem page, added a link in support of "genetic determinism" and one in opposition, as well as categorized the off-site links. I also added the page to the Neuroscience category. I'm going to leave the rest as-is until I get some kind of response or lack of response to the changes.

--Head of the Caligula Appreciation Society 09:22, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)



"Fifty years of genetics" - Where did you get this number? You could be right, but I don't understand the significance of the number of years? Did something happen in(around) 1954 to change our view of disease. Please put a link and clarify.

"However the majority of the complex of traits that make up the physical human phenotype and all its variations are not 'caused' by genes, rather they result of a network of environmental and molecular interactions." - This is definitely not a NPOV.

Please elaborate. It looks like pretty basic and well established developmental genetics to me, one that all biologists would accept. Joe D (t) 21:38, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Genetic determinists want to extend the notion that genes have a role in physically determinism further, by claiming that our behavior is determined by our genes." - Using "want to extend the notion" makes it seem like genetic determinists have an unscrupulous desire to manipulate people into believing in a whimsical idea. Webster's Dictionary

Biological determinism is nature and nurture. Gentic is just nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.253.87.141 (talk) 14:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


--Head of the Caligula Appreciation Society 08:39, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

"Critics of the concept of genetic determinism claim that there are complex traits that make up the physical human phenotype and all its variations are not "caused" by genes, rather they result of a network of environmental and molecular interactions."

I tried to adapt this, but I'm struggling. It does indeed demolish the idea that genes alone determine phenotypes, but the problem is nobody claims anything different. High school students know that phenotypes arise from complex interactions of genetic influences and various forms of environmental influence. Joe D (t) 21:38, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Biological determinism

Shouldn't this page in some way be merged with biological determinism ? They're roughly talking of the same thing, from a slightly different angle, no ? At least, their relationship could be made clearer ... Flammifer 03:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

These points of views may seem identical at first, but genetic determinism assumes by necessity that all biological factors and traits are predefined by genes. So from the viewpoint of genetic determinism, the boilogical version includes nothing new. However, not everyone agrees that genes are responsible for everything. There may beo ther, also not environmental factors (environmental determinism). Example: If the same genes were expressed twice (a kind of thought experiment), would we get the same result? I think this is the main distinction between these two determinisms. Anyway, I agree that this should be commented and the relationship made clearer. Karol 07:54, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
I think that would still be considered environmental. It's clear that the two pages are presenting the same idea, so they should be merged ASAP. Richard001 (talk) 10:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Critique

A Unificationist scholar wrote:

Some people have mistakenly concluded that our genes control everything about our lives and determine our destiny. According to this view, known as genetic determinism, our attitudes, behavior, intelligence, health status, and physical traits are entirely fixed by our genetic makeup. This view leads to a number of problems. It could be used to “explain away” racial prejudices, or to justify violence and criminal behavior. Also, if we are simply the product of our genes, can we solve our social problems and build a world of peace simply by doctoring people’s genes through the techniques of genetic engineering? Moreover, what happens to our concepts of free will, social responsibility, and accountability for our actions?

This was from a speech given this week at a world peace conference in New York. I don't know if it has been published yet. Uncle Ed 14:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


I am not sure the above is useful or applicable since it employs the argument, much of which is delivered throughout this article, of an apparent straw man technique that is referenced in the beginning of this article. Stevenmitchell 03:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)