Science and Society

“Are Our Political Beliefs Encoded in Our DNA?”

Surrounded by news of the government shutdown, Iranian negotiations and Obamacare, this was the headline that caught my eye as I scanned the New York Times headlines.  I think it was the jarring association of the two phrases, “political beliefs” and “DNA” – which I typically think of as unassociated, at least in the mainstream media — that grabbed my attention.

Written by Thomas B. Edsall, the article documents developments in a new methodology in political science called genopolitical analysis which examines correlations between genetics, physiology and political belief – and critiques of the new analytical method.

Political scientists are researching the extent to which genetics determines an individual’s political beliefs. An abstract from a Science paper from September 2008 entitled “Political Attitudes Vary with Physiological Traits” explains that, “although political views have been thought to arise largely from individuals’ experiences, recent research suggests that they may have a biological basis.”

That biological basis to which the paper refers is a battery of physiological traits that are associated with certain political leanings. The authors found that “the degree to which individuals are physiologically responsive to threat appears to indicate the degree to which they advocate policies that protect the existing social structure from both external (outgroup) and internal (norm-violator) threats.”

However, critics argue that no such correlation exists, or that if it does, it is embedded in such a complex web of factors that extracting any meaningful connections is nigh impossible.

But another paper from the American Political Science Association (APSA), defends the budding field of genopolitical analysis by arguing that, “it is not biological determinism to posit the existence of complex collections of genes that increase the probability that certain people will display heightened or deadened response patterns to given environmental cues. And it is not antibehavioralism to suggest that true explanations of the source of political attitudes and behaviors will be found when we combine our currently detailed understanding of environmental forces with a recognition that genetic variables subtly but importantly condition human responses to environmental stimuli.”

I’m inclined to agree with Alford et al., the authors of the APSA paper. Organs and tissues make up the human body (brain included), and all our interaction with the outside world – experience – is mediated through the physical body by the five senses. New research has found that physiology is tied to political ideology. Intuitively, it seems highly unlikely that a connection between genetic composition and political beliefs does not exist. But if a connection exists, and if current research is elucidating those connections, another issue arises. What do we do with that knowledge?

Edsall suggests using the knowledge to solve the political challenges of the day. He argues that “with so much riding on political outcomes — from default on the national debt to an attack on Syria to attitudes toward climate change — understanding key factors contributing to the thinking of elected officials and voters becomes crucial. Every avenue for understanding human behavior should be on the table.”

Delving into the genetic basis of political ideologies is a bit like cracking the lid of Pandora’s box. Using knowledge of genetic influences on behavior to educate citizens within a democracy about how and why they make choices would certainly be a good use of the information. But it’s not a far stretch to imagine an Orwellian society where that that knowledge is used as a tool to engineer repression and control.

Though I agree with Edsall that the knowledge can be used to elucidate our current political problems, I do not think any one person or group should try and use that knowledge to manipulate political outcomes. I think it’s a fine line that must be walked. The exploration of the human animal and all that it does will continue. Should continue. But as new knowledge is gained, we must, as a society, ask the question: How should this knowledge be applied?