Societal implications of the new genomics: Implications in the law and other issues.

Question 1

Criminal behaviour: negate actus reus, versus disprove/mitigate mens rea (1960’s popularity, onwards: XYY syndrome, State vs. Thompson, 2004)

Answer 1

o “Factors outside of his/her control”.
 Negate actus reus, claiming the act itself was not guilty (e.g. self-defence or involuntariness).
o Disprove/mitigate mens rea, by claiming that the defendant’s intention was not guilty (e.g. establishing insanity or a diminished/lack of capacity)
 For example, use of genetic evidence to support a plea of insanity began in the 1960s, when research suggested that males with XYY syndrome were more prone to violence and end up in the criminal justice system. Several XYY defendants in the 70s unsuccessfully attempted to use this in court to establish insanity based on “chromosomal abnormality”. These cases were, however, unable to establish proof that the defendant actively suffered a disorder that affective their ability to perceive right from wrong (e.g. State vs. Thompson, 2004)

Question 2

Mitigate sentencing rather than negate responsibility: 1994 Mobley case, MAOA

Answer 2

 Attempt not to negate responsibility but rather mitigate it, e.g. by claiming a genetic predisposition to impulsive behaviour.
 Despite early unsuccessful attempts to negate criminal responsibility, genetics evidence is now often presented to mitigate punishment. In 1994, defendants of the murderer Stephen Mobley attempted to demonstrate that a family history of behavioural disorder and an MAOA gene mutation suggested a genetic propensity for violence. While the Supreme Court rejected this, a myriad of cases have followed, presenting evidence during sentencing in capital cases.

Question 3

Denno (2011): 1994-2011 (81 known), unsuccessful in actus reus, legal insanity (not diminished capacity/lack of intentionality)

Answer 3

o Denno (2011): Use of behavioural genetics evidence has been uncommon. From 1994-2011, only 81 (known) cases used such evidence in some cases. Most cases using behavioural genetics to disprove/mitigate actus reus have been unsuccessful. Most have attempted to prove legal insanity, rather than diminished capacity or lack of intentionality.

Question 4

Is criminal behaviour genetic?

• Rasmussen et al. (1999) overrepresentation
• Twin studies
• effect sizes
• Tiihonen et al., 2015) GWAS
• MAOA/CDG13, HOWEVER

Answer 4

 Over-representation of major mental and personality disorders (genetic) in criminal populations (Rasmussen et al., 1999)
 Twin studies
 Multiple gene variants for particular types of behavioural trait: each of small-moderate effect (e.g. novelty-seeking, impulsivity, aggression, psychopathy)>
 GWAS/candidate study examining violent offenders vs. non-violent offenders (Tiihonen et al., 2015).
 Evidence for variants in MAOA and CDG13 being associated with extreme violence, HOWEVER:
• Many individuals possessing “risk variants” not violent.
• Many individuals possessing no “risk variants” violent.
• Biased.

Question 5

Geographic issues

Answer 5

o Variant frequency can vary substantially across countries.
o Different countries have different laws.
o Possibility that genetic evidence might be interpreted differently.

Question 6

Environmental variables

Answer 6

o Poverty
o Education
o Parenting practices
o Family structure, e.g. families with poor communication/weak family bonds may foster development of aggressive/criminal behaviour.
o Complex and poorly-understood GxE interplay.
 E.g., child with ADHD  remedial class with high rates of delinquency.

Question 7

Legal issue: Free will vs. responsibility. Screening, stigmatisation, intervention/treatments, undermine environment role,

Answer 7

o Compulsion: “determinism” vs. neglect
o Distinction between “responsibility” and judicial outcome.
o Genetic pre-screening of “likely criminals”
 De-stigmatising explanation for criminal behaviour.
 Just outcome
 Provision of intervention/treatments.
• Targeted modifications (behavioural/social).
• Sterilisation of affected parents.
• Abortion of affected foetus.
• Gene or drug therapy.
 Such an approach may de-emphasise the role of the environment.

Question 8

Insurance: voluntary moratorium (exc. >.5m and HD)

Answer 8

o Need to inform insurance company if “genetic condition” runs in family (diagnostic test results).
o Voluntary moratorium between UK government and insurance industry limits insurers’ access to personal and family members “predictive” genetic test results (unless applying for >£0.5m insurance and having undergone HD predictive test).
o In US, several cases of genetic discrimination by insurance companies documented.

Question 9

Employment: Equality Act (2010), only legit for radiation/hazards. Psychometrics atm, –> GWAS recruitment)

Answer 9

o Use of genetic test results by employers restricted by Equality Act 2010
o Employers may legitimately use genetic tests:
 To monitor DNA damage induced by hazardous chemicals/radiation.
 To assess risk of developing a condition upon exposure to a hazardous chemical or a radiation.
• e.g. can look at variation in genes that degrade toxins, that repair the body, or that are involved in immune processes.
 Testing may enable vulnerable individuals to avoid workplace exposure to toxins.
o Currently, many companies use psychometric tests to help recruit employees.
 GWASs are now beginning to identify variants associated with different personality types (neuroticism, self-employment, proneness to anger, entrepreneurship etc.)
 Possibility of using applicants’ DNA as an objective screening tool.

Question 10

Education (Plomin study, 2010: ‘g’)

Answer 10

o Evidence for a genetic component to human intelligence (IQ)
o Plomin study (2010)
 Studied general cognitive ability in ~8000 children.
 In lowest and highest scoring 1000 individuals, looked at ~350,000 SNPs across the genome.
 No variant significantly associated with “g”.

Question 11

Discrimination, e.g. orientation, reduce stigmatisation BUT pre-natal genetic screening (abortion, whose rights take precedence) & “treatment” for “abnormality”- genetic therapies.

Answer 11

o Sexual orientation -> implications
 Historical prejudice against homosexuality (decriminalised 1967, in DSM until 1973).
 Accumulating evidence that sexual preference is partially biologically-mediated.
 Linkage studies have indicated particular genetic regions of interest
• Impact of GWAS
 “Proof” of biological predisposition (i.e. not a lifestyle choice).
 If “natural”, less grounds to claim immorality.
 HOWEVER, biological predisposition does not over-ride free will; role of the environment
• Pre-natal genetic screening
o Abortion (on what basis: medical, religious, social?)
o Whose rights take precedence?
• “Treatment” for “abnormality”
o Alteration of genetic code
o Medication based on implicated biological pathways.

Question 12

Historical behavioural patterns (Goldberg et al., 2017)

Answer 12

o	Using (sex-linked) genomics to infer historical behaviour patterns:
	Ancient X chromosomes reveal contrasting sex bias in Neolithic and Bronze Age Eurasian migrations (Goldberg et al., 2017)