Scientists Seek Biomarkers For Violence 294
An anonymous reader writes "A Newtown couple, both scientists, who lost their daughter in the school shooting, are wondering whether there were clues in the shooter's physiological makeup — his DNA, his blood, his brain chemistry. They are now involved in a search for biomarkers, similar to those that may indicate disease, for violence. They are raising money to help fund this research, but the effort is running into obstacles, in part, over ethical concerns. 'I'm not opposed to research on violence and biomarkers, but I'm concerned about making too big of a leap between biomarkers and violence,' said Troy Duster, a researcher at the University of California at Berkeley. There is concern that science may find biomarkers long before society can deal with its implications."
So what then? (Score:5, Insightful)
"This guy has a biomarker for violence... Shoot him! Get him before he attacks!"
I'm reminded of the parody video from The Onion (I think) where you had a jock who was killing the misfits at his high school so that they wouldn't snap and create another columbine.
Re:AC Post (Score:5, Insightful)
Makes sense in most cases.
More on-topic: Just today I was reading about a guy with Down Syndrome managing to pass exams in my country which would be the equivalent of post-high school exams. He even passed with pretty good grades, while lots of "healthy" individuals failed soundly.
How does that link to this article? Well, even if people with Down Syndrome usually can't achieve that, some do. I think the same would apply to biomarkers: they might raise awareness but definitely wouldn't bring certainty that violence WILL occur. It's pretty dangerous to make assumptions based on the fact that you "might" become violent.
Re:AC Post (Score:3, Insightful)
Sadly, his accomplishment is far more likely related to the quality and expectations of most high schools. Most places have been slowly lowering the bar for quite some time.
all human males have biomarker for violence (Score:2, Insightful)
Just think, dear slashdot reader, people just like you have been conscripted into armies throughout the ages, and made to kill and maim. Many gave in to peer pressure and raped too.
Maybe developing conscience and education in human dignity, rights and respect is a better pursuit than trying to find excuses to pre-judge
Re:So what then? (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that any biomarkers of an individual is at best half the story.
What would they find? A propensity to act impulsively or violently to certain stimuli, perhaps? What if such a person could gain enough experience to control those impulses?
Alternately, otherwise perfectly normal people go bananas because they are subjected to people who are not violent, but they are incredibly manipulative. Or perhaps situations completely outside their control like a terrible accident or terrorist attack. Their otherwise non-impulsive nature might, over time, be turned to murderous rage.
There are real concerns about labeling people in a way that could cause immediate action to be taken against them before the whole picture is understood. Incomplete science can always be used as a particularly potent excuse for atrocity.
Re:AC Post (Score:4, Insightful)
According to YouTube 21 M people have already seen this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w [youtube.com] [Zeitgeist 2011].
I thought the matter is settled already - trying to find "gene for violence" is futile and dangerous. One of the cited studies found some such gene, but if the individual was not raised in harsh environment it did not turn on [and that group actually scored lower than "normal" on violence in such cases] but in the opposite case the gene was turned on. Also - if you don't have that gene and are abused you will also likely become violent.
So what do we have here? If you carry that gene you are more sensitive than others to violence against you. You run higher risk than others to become violent yourself if exposed to abuse. Such individuals then would require a tad more consideration rather than being already stigmatized as "potential troublemaker". See how this research will do the opposite of what they supposedly intent? See the pavement on the road to Hell? Yhea, me too...
Re:AC Post (Score:5, Insightful)
To top it off, I have a pretty sizable inner potential for violence. The road I took in order to control my impulses was long, windy and hard. I can say I've been "cured" mostly, although I still have occasional (short) outbursts.
I'm thinking that a "gene" detective would still categorize me in a way which is less than flattering, so-to-speak.
Now, those scientists who are trying to find biomarkers for violence are driven not by scientific curiosity, but vengeance. They are trying to "find all motherfuckers who resemble the motherfucker who killed our child". I'm not blaming them (it's a human impulse after all), but I don't think they deserve support either.
Re:AC Post (Score:5, Insightful)
What if these same markers are co-incident with those for creativity or genius? What if they are the same as those for compassion or charity, but part of a more holistic interaction, which results in the perceived different expression?
"Be careful, lest in casting out your demon you exorcise the best thing in you."
-- Friedrich Nietzsche
What if our entire set of personal traits cannot be reduced to deterministic, binary markers?
Re:So what then? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Citizen 1138, age 11, you punched a classmate. DNA Analysis reveals are prone to violence, and will be locked up for the protection of society."
Like the perfect storm of combining self-fulfilling prophecy with zero tolerance overreactions. like the story of Joey (the minor petty thief who was a good kid, until they locked him for 6 years over a pack of gum. by the time he got out, he was hardened and conditioned to taking what he needed to survive) taken to the extreme.
but ya, it compeltely ignores the ideas of self-control, free-will, and growth as an individual.
Re:AC Post (Score:3, Insightful)
This is like the bizarre, inverted hypothesis of the "hard AI" folks, and their cohort in the "singularity" camp.
They seem to imply the challenge: "Prove that a human mind is not deterministically reducible to binary representation."
They have frequently reversed the assumption and hypothesis relationship.
Re:AC Post (Score:4, Insightful)
IF they identify markers for violence, THEN we will need to concern ourselves with making sure society doesn't take that as a certainty. Society has decided that sex offenders usually having a high rate of recidivism means that every individual sex offender is going to commit another sex offense, so we should lock them up forever.
Except we don't do that at all. We'd rather keep nonviolent drug offenders in prison for ridiculously long terms.
With the convicted pedophiles, molestors, or just some poor kid that had sex with his slightly underage girlfriend, or some guy who was drunk and pissed in public, we go ahead and release them, but give them a "sex offender" label (which is the same, no matter whether you just pissed in public in view of a child or you molested one), which prevents them from living a certain distance from schools or day-care centers. What this translates to is they aren't allowed to live in any inhabited area, except under a bridge somewhere, because that's the only place they can find that isn't too close to a school or day-care center. They'd probably be a lot happier if we set up their own small city in the middle of North Dakota, free of any schools or children so they can live like normal people.