Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Scientists Discover 'Crime Gene' 81

Posted by michael from the put-your-crime-genes-on dept.
Buggernut writes "Researchers from King's College in London have found that boys who have a particular version of a gene are much more likely to go off the rails if they suffer maltreatment when young." MAO breaks down a whole class of brain-affecting chemicals, and MAO inhibitors are commonly used to treat depression (but are known to produce mood swings and violence). So if you have a genetic predisposition to low levels of MAO, your resistance to various mood-altering chemicals is lowered. You ever get the feeling that we're tinkering with a hugely complex system and observing only one or two of the most pronounced effects?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Scientists Discover 'Crime Gene' More

Scientists Discover 'Crime Gene'

Comments Filter:

  • Moral Delema (Score:2, Interesting)

    by MattCohn.com ( 555899 )
    This brings up an interesting question...

    If someone has this gene, and got in to trouble, are they responsible for their own actions? We have already kept mentaly retarded people from getting the death penalty, are these people next?
    • Well, legally the acid test is: did they understand what they were doing was wrong. If so then they're guilty. Whether they had any choice to feel that way isn't something that the law profession concerns themself with overly.

      Personally I'm not sure.

      It's a bit like, if a lion eats someone whether they are guilty of murder or not. Do you shoot the lion? Historically they have done so. There are moves afoot now to say- that's the kind of behaviour we expect of lions, we shouldn't have got in its way.

      Perhaps if people were tested to find out whether they were lions or not, and people get ample chances to avoid prodding these aggressive lions among us, then we might consider the context of any provocation more carefully. Ultimately though, the law would still have to draw a line somewhere- you'd want to lock up people that are sufficiently dangerous in any case.

      • It's a bit like, if a lion eats someone whether they are guilty of murder or not. Do you shoot the lion? Historically they have done so. There are moves afoot now to say- that's the kind of behaviour we expect of lions, we shouldn't have got in its way.

        That's hardly the point of shooting the lion. It has nothing to do with guilt and morality. Sure, you can argue that a lion has a right to survive, but then so do we. Generally, you don't see a lot of lions preying on human beings; it is presumed that they're not sure if humans are good eating, and they perceive us as potentially dangerous.

        Once a lion has actually killed and eaten a human, it's reasonable to assume its perception of humans has changed, that it would see humans as less of a danger and more of a tasty snack option. That makes that particular individual lion a public menace, and that's why we put it down. Not because we think it can make moral decisions, but because we don't want it to eat our children.

        This also applies to other animals, of course; when a pet dog or cat acquires a taste for human flesh, the animal is always destroyed.

      • In the good olde times, there were trials against various animals for killing people. Of course non of them had anything to say in their defense ;-).

        Anyway, killing somebody isn't the only solution, even if many Americans think that.

    • Me: here, Billy
      Billy: I caught it!
      Me: Good, Billy. Now, I'm going to throw another ball over your head. Don't try to catch this one.

      So what does billy do?

      Being genetically predisposed to something is nothing like not having the ability to understand or control your actions.
    • Well Billy, I am sorry that your genes pre-disposed you to bashing someone over the head (or stealing billions through corporate fraud), but my genes pre-dispose me to ignoring your plea and locking you up for 50 years.... What delema?

    • If someone has this gene, and got into trouble, are they responsible for their own actions?

      Of course they are. Assuming free will exists at all (and if not, intent ceases to be a legal issue anyway), genetics can only create a tendency to behave in a certain way. Any specific action is purely the result of choice. If the perpetrator was capable of understanding the consequences of their actions, they're guilty. Remember, rapists have a genetic predisposition towards having sex with women.

      • and if not, intent ceases to be a legal issue anyway)

        Not really, this entire western civilization thingy kinda relies upon everybody going along with the assumption that free will exists.

        Whether or not it actually does exist is a rather moot point, it just needs to be assumed to exist in order for society to function.

        Hell if somebody tomorrow proved with 100% certainty that free will did not exist, it would not likely change a single thing in our society. We need to assume the existence of free will or else we end up being obligated to let a lot of rather dangerous people run loose, either that or we just end up /veeeerrrry/ apathetic in our day to day lives, or both. Ick. All of those possibilities suck.

        • Whether or not it actually does exist is a rather moot point...

          That was precicely the point of my parenthetical. My argument was based on the assumption of free will, because it's a necessary assumption. The reasons for that, which you stated, are obvious and at best tangentially related to my topic. So instead of making my post longer and more rambling, I made a quick reference to them and moved on.

          Because you started with "Not really," I assume you thought you were disagreeing with me. You weren't, you just misinterpreted me. If I didn't state my point clearly, I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure I did.

          • That was precicely the point of my parenthetical. My argument was based on the assumption of free will, because it's a necessary assumption.

            Oh, I just thought you meant everything would go to shit if it didn't. :-D I was just saying that society would likely keep on going on as it did no matter what. :)

  • Finally we have used Science to absolve Dungeons & Dragons, goth culture, mp3 stealing, and video games from responsibility for school shootings. Hopefully this will shut up that element in American society that believes that censorship can ever put an end to the kind of violence that has plagued our society for the last few years.

    This comes as a great relief to those of us who are of a civil libertarian bent. It seems that the effects of so-called "evil" media and entertainment are what we've always claimed: figments of the imaginations of people looking for a scapegoat. Now we can go about jailing these genetically predetermined killers before they can do any harm to society. Another triumph for Science.
    • Hah! The same prudes that push for censorship are more likely than not to be the same kind that call science "blasphemy."
    • Not even close. Instead, they'll say, "Well, if you have this gene, you're not allowed such evil things, because that is abusive. Oh, nevermind the fact that you never see your parents because they both have jobs, and when you do, they're usually pissed off and irate because they just got off work, no, no, it's the goth culture!"
  • ... published on Thursday is this one [economist.com]. Not much more information, though.

  • Your Honor, (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by eyepeepackets ( 33477 )
    "I plead guilty to being a vicious serial spammer and occasional pud pounder because my genes make me do it and my mommy once spanked me for torturing the neighbor's pussy, er, cat and if you give me a break I know you'll always fondly remember that you didn't pass up on this really, really fabulous chance to win the cheapest insurance for your cheap Asian porn adventures in hot, steamy Borneo, courtesy of the owners of your new timeshare in Florida, where you can get cheap airline tickets to anywhere in the world and while there thank yourself for doing justice today. Thank you, your honor!"

    Judge: *pound* Five million and five years!

  • New pre-employment test (Score:4, Insightful)

    by moncyb ( 456490 ) on Friday August 02, 2002 @07:55PM (#4002486) Journal
    Now they will probably test everyone for this gene along with drugs. Everyone that happens to have this gene won't be able to get a job. Just substitute "crime gene" for Jew, and we have Nazi Germany all over again...
    • No, they won't. genes are too abstract for people to develop an irrational hatred based on them. More likely, this will allow people to concentrate therapy and social services more effectively.

      Well, either that or I'm just too optomistic.
    • That comparison is wrong in many ways.

      First, the horror of Nazi Germany was the industrial-scale murder of millions of members of minorities (not only Jews) by a modern, generally educated Western society that started out as a democracy but hit economic hard times and had an overinflated national ego. This should be a warning to any nation that thinks "it can't happen here".

      Otherwise, Nazi Germany was hardly unique. Let's not even get into historical or more recent genocides and mass murders. Just in terms of discrimination, Jews, blacks, communists, gypsies, and homosexuals have been strongly discriminated against in many countries, and still are today--in fact, while anti-semitism is currently unpopular in the US, many Americans evidently still think there is nothing wrong with discriminating against these other groups.

      Genetic discrimination in Western nations will most likely not be like Nazi Germany but rather like the caste system in India or racial discrimination and profiling in the US--insidiously destructive but only indirectly lethal. If you have the wrong genes, you won't get health insurance, you won't be able to get many jobs, and people may not be willing to invest much in your education. Why should a private health insurance take on someone they have a good chance of losing money on? Why should a foundation give an educational scholarship to someone who has a 30% chance of dying before age 45 when there is a nearly equally qualified applicant that has no such risk?

      • I don't really espect it ever to be legal. However, unscrupulous businesses may use black-market test for such. Some day it may be so easy to test genes that any Joe will be able to afford a gizmo for it.
      • First, the horror of Nazi Germany was the industrial-scale murder of millions of members of minorities (not only Jews) by a modern, generally educated Western society that started out as a democracy but hit economic hard times and had an overinflated national ego. This should be a warning to any nation that thinks "it can't happen here".

        I think that says more than anything that it's almost already happening here.

      • My comparison wasn't wrong, just the way you interpreted it. I didn't say Nazi Germany was unique--I just gave it as one example. I'm also not saying that things won't end up like what you said in your last paragraph. Both scenarios are possiblities.

        First, the horror of Nazi Germany was the industrial-scale murder of millions of members of minorities (not only Jews)

        Do you think that happened overnight? Things slowly built up to that. As I understand it, they didn't start slaughtering people in Germany--the Nazis started on foreign soil.

        How is my comparison like the Nazis? First they start forcing people with this gene to go on "medication" since these people will supposedly commit crimes if they don't. That doesn't solve the crime problem, so they decide to put these people in concentration camps...oops...I mean "mental institutions"...oops...I mean "place for the socially challenged". Then things go downhill from there...

        Why don't you think that can happen in the US? In this country they blamemonger everything.

        Fatty food is killing people because it gives them heart attacks--we should sue anyone who tries to sell it...who cares if the poor may depend this food to survive--they should just buy more expensive stuff and cut their rations.

        Drugs cause countless social problems--we should ban them so everyone has to go to a corrupt HMO just to get a prescription, and the FDA can decline terminal patients a potentially life saving experimental medication.

        Many products are "dangerous"--we should make manufacturers tack on countless warnings for even the most well known and obvious dangers, even to the point where the warnings on products that have lesser known and really dangerous problems will be ignored because there is too much crap to read.

        Americans evidently still think there is nothing wrong with discriminating against these other groups.

        I agree, discrimination is alive and well in the US. However I'd also like to point out your list is the same as the biparty's list. Because of the current political climate and your list, I have to wonder if you believe that the groups on your list can't discriminate and the only discrimination happens against the groups on your list. Capitalists, asians, caucasians, and even heterosexuals are also discriminated against. In fact some people discriminate against everyone that is not in their religion. I live in such an area and I am the minority here--even though I don't fit into any of the groups on your list...

          • Drugs cause countless social problems--we should ban them so everyone has to go to a corrupt HMO just to get a prescription, and the FDA can decline terminal patients a potentially life saving experimental medication
          Those are two completely separate topics, two separate paragraphs preferred, but at least two separate sentences.

          Grammatically correct? *shrugs* Don't care. Logically correct? Hell no, there should NOT be any sort of a connector anywheres around those two ideas.

          I am anti-drug, heavily so. Death threats received to the tune of "please fuck off and let us shoot-up or else I will beat the living f*ck out of your stupid ass" so.

          I am pro-Science. Science rocks, politics suck. FDA has too much politics in it, so does the anti-drug war, but at least their underlying motives are sound (drugs f*ck you up man!), the HMOs are just a bunch of corrupt dirty greedy bastards.

          As I said, two separate topics. Do NOT get them confused. Thank you.

    • No (Score:2)

      by HanzoSan ( 251665 )
      But all people with the crime gene, hate and aggression gene should be put on medication

      I think the world would be better off if these emotional flaws did not exsist.

      • This is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about. How would forcing medication on those with this gene help? The article said people with this gene who were also maltreated. Preventing child abuse may do much more than any medication. In fact the article talks about this:

        They also fear that governments may turn to using drugs to fight crime, rather than tackling deep-rooted social problems.

      • I think we already tried this.

        We shot for a nation of "Peace and Love" and all we ended up with were Volkswagon buses and tie-die.

        Of course, the medication wasn't exactly standarized...
    • The movie Gattaca [imdb.com] is a study in the social consequences of genetic profiling. There is a homicide case in which the initial suspect merely has the wrong genes; the actual killer claims that his genes make him incapable of violence.
        • There is a homicide case in which the initial suspect merely has the wrong genes; the actual killer claims that his genes make him incapable of violence.
        I have watched that movie a number of times (ok, 2, and it has been quite a few years) and I do not remember that part of it at all.

        I do remember giving it out at genetics presentation as a hopeful example of what the future will turn out to be like though.

        Everybody perfect. What was seen in that movie was the last visage of a lost generation, after the remnants from that generation die off there would be no more problems.

        Everybody healthy, everybody able. No Blind, no Deaf, no physically disabled. No schizophrenics, no bi-polars, no rapists, no pedeophiles.

        Sounds like a damn fine and nifty future to me!
        • Ummmm... that movie wasn't designed to be a high-spirited glance into the happy, "nifty," future. It was supposed to give a vision of the bad things that could happen if we go too far without stopping to look around. Apparently, you didn't look around.
          • Ummmm... that movie wasn't designed to be a high-spirited glance into the happy, "nifty," future. It was supposed to give a vision of the bad things that could happen if we go too far without stopping to look around. Apparently, you didn't look around.

            Sure I did. No racism, no slavery, no starving, no abused lower class, no genocides, no hatred, no rape, no pedeophiles, no asthma, no dying from a heart attack at age 45, no cancer, no cerebral palsy, no blindness, no deafness, no downs syndrome;

            need I go on?
        • I suppose, but the thing is who determines the right genes isn't always right. This may be the same for the crime gene.

          If we were to make ourselves a bunch of pure breeds then as a whole we would not be a versatile bunch, and definitely would not be as resistant to disease. I guess the same could be said of dogs, not to belittle us humans though. Just an example. I kinda saw the movie as a triumph of will over genetics.

          JOhn
    • Now they will probably test everyone for this gene along with drugs. Everyone that happens to have this gene won't be able to get a job. Just substitute "crime gene" for Jew, and we have Nazi Germany all over again...
      I agree... But remember the recents discussion about the "scientific proof of colored people's inferiority" [ciurlionis.net]? Well, there you don't even need a gene test.
      Anyway, once again we have scientists who willingly put such arguments into the hands of (potential) fascists...

  • why couldn't they have found something useful like the stupidity gene, or the 'predisposition to middle management' gene. Maybe the even the dreaded 'oblivious to reality' gene. We could stamp a big L at birth on foreheads of those afflicted and save the rest of us a lot of time and pain.
  • The most startling aspect of this is, imo, that this gives people the ability to blame social problems on biological factors. People are more and more able to ignore the social factors that lead to crime, and listen only to the "it's not my fault" attitude that things like "crime genes" allow.
    • more able to ignore the social factors that lead to crime

      The economist article explained that social factors were very important. Of the set with low-promoter regions and violent childhoods 85% had anti-social behavior. The next most violent group was the one without the DNA problem and violent childhoods, 45% of them were still violent.

      There is one dutch family where many of the men don't have the oxidase-A gene at all and they are all "notoriously violent men." But this is very rare, unfortunately just having a low level of this mood regulator isn't rare. Having too high a level is related to depression so that's not so great either.

      Having a peaceful home whether you have the gene problem or not is good, and even out of those abused with the problem DNA 3 out of 20 still turn out ok. The fact that 12% of the kids had been maltreated and had the problem gene is shocking to me, it means over 12% of the kids were abused at all. Now they may include non-parental abuse here, but still it's a big number we should do something about. Not just because those 12% accounted for 44% of those criminally convicted of violence, but because we want to live in a fair world. The fact that it will reduce crime 5-10 years out should be a good budgetary reason though.

      Just imagine a major running campaign on reducing taxes through police attrition, or if you're liberal, extending free education out to the 2nd or 3rd year of college through court cost reductions. It sounds almost unimaginable now.
  • It is possible that genetic research may eventually contribute something to our knowledge of crime, and perhaps even to its control. But the contribution will most likely be indirect. And any aspects of genetic disorders or other biological factors, most likely will be contributed to other things such as alcoholism and addictions rather than genes being blamed for the violent behavior.
  • You ever get the feeling that we're tinkering with a hugely complex system and observing only one or two of the most pronounced effects?

    What sort of banal comment is the editor trying to make? The scientists have been saying - clearly, loudly, and continuously - that genes form a complex system where one trait might have many chromosomes and one chromosome might affect several traits. To only "get the feeling" now is incredible. Has the editor been living under a damn rock?!?

  • You ever get the feeling that we're tinkering with a hugely complex system and observing only one or two of the most pronounced effects?

    That's the best thing I've ever seen written in slashdot. We're like the proverbial blind men trying to identify an elephant by touching just a single part.
    • >We're like the proverbial blind men trying to identify an elephant by touching just a single part.

      >To only "get the feeling" now is incredible. Has the editor been living under a damn rock?!?

      Ah, slashdot -- where points are made with conflicting cliches.
  • I bet someone will want to, in the future, screen potential employees for this gene to see if they'll be violent or not. This can lead us to an era of genetic discrimination, like in Gattaca.
  • So yet another thing for American's to use to absolve themselves of responsibility for screwing up. Whatever. I say bullshit.

    Another way to look at these results is to say that certain people are genetically predisposed to react *more severely* to certain forms of stimuli and treatment at an early age where personality traits and reactions are *still forming*.

    This does nothing to change the fact that parents use the TV, PS2, and Internet as babysitters, and then cry foul when Johnny can't read and/or has low self esteem, or Johnny gets in trouble for hacking pron sites because they've raised their child to believe everything has a reset switch and a save game option.

    Your children can and will be used against you in a court of law.
    • So yet another thing for American's to use to absolve themselves of responsibility for screwing up. Whatever. I say bullshit.

      Huh? What? This is just the result of a statistical study.

      You're still thinking about the fast food lawsuit guy.

    • Maltreatment as a chld is hardly a new "excuse" for screwing up.
    • On a more positive note, people with this gene could be made aware of it, and they could learn how to manage their aggression, much like parapalegics learn to live with a wheelchair, and schizophrenics learn to recognize when they are are holucinating.
      • Won't happen. At least, not in the US. You wouldn't spot this until late in life, via behavioral observation. In order to catch it at a point where you can adapt to it, you'd have to do gene mapping as an infant child. The only way that works well is to make it compulsory or convince parents that it's a good idea.

        For all our arrogance, Americans are some of the stupidest and fearful people on the planet. Thank you, pop culture.
  • ... are not commonly prescribed anymore because they interact with damn near every chemical you could possibly put into your body. everything from ginseng to st. john's wort to alcohol. If you or anyone you know is still taking them, you should talk to your doctor about switching to a safer more effective alternative.
    • Right, stuff that can be lethal when associated with caffeine is bound to be hated by any geek with a sense of self-preservation.
  • It is important to note that the study focused only on men who had been abused. It has been well established that anyone who has been abused is more prone to destructive behavior. What would be more significant is if a study group of people with the gene found a significant portion of that population, regardless of upbringing, had criminal or anti-social tendencies.

    I also found it positive that the article stated several times that genes do not define a person and that there are more serious problems at hand when discussing crime than prevention through opression.
  • Why must the media try and distill every genetics study into a "we've found the X gene" story? It's this kind of sensationalistic reporting that perpetuates the skewed image the average American has about science. Behavior is complicated, and you aren't going to be able to explain something like criminal behavior with a single "crime gene." Behavioral disorders likely involve multiple genes. There is evidence that this is the case in schizophrenia - familiy members of schizophrenics often have a spectrum of symptoms to varying degrees without being full-blown schizophrenics themselves. This is one reason the new gene chip array technologies are so popular in the neurosciences. You can screen changes in the expression of thousands of genes at the same time. It is the combined effect of sets of genes - not one single gene - that cause complex changes in behavior. I wish the media would get a clue. This was on the BBC for chrissakes.

    Sorry if I sound ornery. I guess I got in a bad mood when on odyssey5 tonight, the science geek went on about how serotonin reuptake inhibitors worked "just like ketamine." You're a science fiction show. Hire a science consultant dammit.

    -margaret
  • Is there a cure for the Geek Gene?

    (Don't need a test for it. A gorgeous babe can sense one for miles and adjust course accordingly.)
    • That's why Geeks have taken to traveling in packs. Sure, the gorgeous babe might have better anti-geek senses, and might be able to run faster, but if we use our superior planning ability we are able to bring them down. Occasionally. 10% at best.
  • Don't rule out some sort of discrimination coming about. Tests for genes like this one might come down in price enough for large scale use, and then you'd have a major problem. Governments might try to lock up people with certain genes on the belief that they are preventing crime. Considering what we've seen from the general population recently, I wouldn't discount the possibility. Genetics are a big factor, but you can still overcome your "programming", you aren't a slave to it.
    • is was more likly to become criminals if abused. this dosn't make for discrimination unless they just say, hey have you been maltreated, right you're under arrest. what is will more likly mean is genitic modification at birth to redice chances of being a criminal.
  • Hibbert: Well, only one in two million people has what we call the "evil gene". [holds up a card showing DNA] Hitler had it, Walt Disney had it, and Freddy Quimby has it. [chuckles]
  • Sounds like this is good stuff for the sequal to Minority Report

  • Sulfites & MAOs (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    One very simple test for low MOA activity is to eat sulfites and if you get sick (up-chuck or develop migrane-like headache) then you may have low MAO activity that is inhibited by sulfites.

    Warning: A very small percentage of the population has a life threatening allergic reaction to sulfites.

    Sulfites are widely used to keep food from turning brown and are found in vineger, wines mushrooms, and other food that you know darn well should turn brown after they've been in you fridge for months.

    You are what you eat.

    BTW MAO inhibitors use to be used tp treat a number mental conditions. Depression being one, I think. It is little used these days because of the hash side effect on the body. MAO is located in the mitrocondria and breakdown a number of neural transmitters such as dopamine, serotonin and catacolamines such as adrenain. No wonder low activity put people on edge.

  • This is exactly the base of the plot of Crime Zero by Michael Cordy. Scary...
  • Stop maltreatment of people, young or old.
  • I haven't posted to Slashdot in a long time, but thought that since this is about something near to me, which doesn't happen often, I would.

    I'm loosely involved with Avshalom Caspi's group (Caspi is the lead author of the study, and happens to be at U of Wisconsin as well as UC London). I don't work directly with Avshalom on a daily basis, but I know him, and work with their data, etc. on a fairly regular basis. I wasn't involved in this particular study, but knew about it ahead of time.

    Anyway, there's a couple of things to keep in mind about this study before you take it too much to heart. First, there's no replication sample in this study. While that isn't always an issue in science, with behavioral genomic studies it is, because effect sizes are typically so small to begin with, and false positives are an ongoing concern. It's of particular concern in this study because they're claiming an interaction effect. Now, you'd think that interactive effects would be the norm in psychology, but in fact, they're notoriously difficult to replicate, and almost never do. Not never, but rarely. If this effect didn't reliably replicate, I wouldn't be surprised in the least.

    Second, there's no background genetic controls. If MAO polymorphisms had never been included in the study, Avshalom would have been laughed off the scene because of the lack of genetic controls (e.g., using twin, adoption, or family designs). There's a lot of genetic variance in that sample that is related to externalizing behavior that's not being accounted for by the single gene that they considered in the study. It's entirely possible that that background genetic variation is accounting for the interaction with MAO polymorphisms and not abuse per se.

    It's a great study, with a lot to think about, and I think more people should do more studies like it. But I am a bit reluctant to make too much of it at his point, because there's a lot of things that were missing in the study, things that were especially important given the complexity of the claims they were making.

Slashdot Top Deals

I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning. -- Plato

Close