Leading article: We still have free will in the age of genetics
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.WHEN SCIENTISTS claimed to have found the "gay gene", they detonated a furious argument about free will and determinism. It had long been argued that the age of consent for homosexual sex should not be equalised at 16 because homosexuality was "just a phase", and young men might be "converted" to it at a vulnerable and ambiguous time of their lives. Those in favour of equality responded that most people feel sure about their sexuality long before they are 16. Some of them seized on the finding that homosexuality might be genetically determined as ammunition for their side of the debate, but this was premature.
Now another study claims to have found that bullying is in the genes. This is a gross simplification of the conclusion of a study that itself assumes that the lines of causation from genes to personality are simple. This is a rapidly growing area of research, which has recently produced findings (again, not yet replicated in other studies) that "cautiousness", and differences in behaviour between boys and girls, may be genetically determined.
The problem is that the way in which genes influence personality is neither simple nor well understood. It is understood even less by the lay public, who may be misled into thinking that the latest research in some way excuses bullying: "I can't help it, Miss, it's in my genes." So even if these findings are backed up by further research, we are still a long way from being able to make any practical use of them. When the ways in which character and intelligence are constructed from the information encoded in the 80,000 human genes are understood, then the difficult ethical questions begin. Then we face the prospect of the rich of the world being able to control their own evolution.
Meanwhile, it is more important to insist that nothing in the science of genetics absolves people from making moral choices about their own behaviour. From the earliest times, philosophers have struggled with the knowledge that free will is constrained. For a long time, the deep constraint was not genes but religion. But the wise philosophers have always concluded that people have choices and should try to use them for good. That is as true in today's secular age as it ever has been.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments