New ways of using your genetic data could bolster scientific racism and encourage discrimination.
Want to predict aggression? Neuroticism? Risk aversion? Authoritarianism? Academic achievement? This is the latest promise from the burgeoning field of sociogenomics.
There have been many “DNA revolutions” since the discovery of the double helix, and now we’re in the midst of another. A marriage of the social and natural sciences, it aims to use the big data of genome science—data that’s increasingly abundant thanks to genetic testing companies like 23andMe—to describe the genetic underpinnings of the sorts of complex behaviors that interest sociologists, economists, political scientists, and psychologists. The field is led by a group of mostly young, often charismatic scientists who are willing to write popular books and op-eds, and to give interviews and high-profile lectures. This work shows that the nature-nurture debate never dies—it is just cloned and raised afresh in a new world. […]
msamba 
They may not have heard the latest news or are ignoring it: Experiences and change of our surroundings can change our DNA (sounds familiar from the corn, doesn’t it?). And meditation will change ones DNA to a healthier state. So what is the prediction worth then? Scientists often seem to do things just because they can, which does not seem very scientific.
I have often asked myself, why they do research on basis of a hypothesis, instead of just observing patterns and drawing conclusions from that and then try to prove it. But, of course, what do I know … 😉 However, this method with a hypothesis seems very rigid and limiting to me.
LikeLiked by 1 person