Showing posts with label genetics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label genetics. Show all posts
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Genetic basis for sex differences in pro-social behaviour
Or to put it another way: women are born to be nicer according to this report of research. Yeah, I know, you told us.
Wednesday, February 09, 2011
Talk on Genetics and Personality Tomorrow (Wednesday) Night
Topic: ISS talk Wednesday 9th February
Irish Skeptics Feb 08 09:05PM ^
Dear all,
I am writing to remind you that our 2011 lecture series begins tomorrow
night, Wednesday 9th February, with a talk by Dr Kevin Mitchell of the Dept
of Genetics, Trinity College Dublin, who will give a presentation entitled:
*Born that way - how the wiring of the brain makes us who we are*
Time: 8:00pm
Where: Davenport Hotel, Merrion Square, Dublin 2.
Admission: €3 for members and concessions; €6 for non-members.
Hope you can make it,
With Best Wishes,
Noirin Buckley
on behalf of the ISS
Description:
Dr Kevin Mitchell heads up a lab specialising in developmental neurogenetics. He previously presented to the Irish Skeptics Society during April last on the genetics of perception. The response at the time was so overwhelmingly positive that we have decided to invite him back. This time he will examine how genetic and neurodevelopmental variation affects how the brain is wired, which in turn has a predominant influence on major personality traits and other psychological characteristics. He will also comment on how nature interacts with nurture.
Irish Skeptics
Dear all,
I am writing to remind you that our 2011 lecture series begins tomorrow
night, Wednesday 9th February, with a talk by Dr Kevin Mitchell of the Dept
of Genetics, Trinity College Dublin, who will give a presentation entitled:
*Born that way - how the wiring of the brain makes us who we are*
Time: 8:00pm
Where: Davenport Hotel, Merrion Square, Dublin 2.
Admission: €3 for members and concessions; €6 for non-members.
Hope you can make it,
With Best Wishes,
Noirin Buckley
on behalf of the ISS
Description:
Dr Kevin Mitchell heads up a lab specialising in developmental neurogenetics. He previously presented to the Irish Skeptics Society during April last on the genetics of perception. The response at the time was so overwhelmingly positive that we have decided to invite him back. This time he will examine how genetic and neurodevelopmental variation affects how the brain is wired, which in turn has a predominant influence on major personality traits and other psychological characteristics. He will also comment on how nature interacts with nurture.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Genes, economics and happiness
We all know some people are born stupid but what I didn't know was that some people are born to be happy dudes while others are inherently miserable. To be precise, heritability of happiness is approximately 33%, and much higher for men then women.
This is documented in a study by De Neve, Christakis, Fowler and Frey which is even able to pinpoint specific genes associated with happiness. This suggests that if you want your kids to be happy campers that you should be very careful who you mate with, especially if you are a woman. Unless its too late. There's a cheery thought.
This is documented in a study by De Neve, Christakis, Fowler and Frey which is even able to pinpoint specific genes associated with happiness. This suggests that if you want your kids to be happy campers that you should be very careful who you mate with, especially if you are a woman. Unless its too late. There's a cheery thought.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Adopted children as a natural experiment ?
Many applied micro-economists like natural experiments to deal with selection on unobservables and the use of data on adopted children (compared to non-adopted) seems a nice way to deal with with unobserved genetic effects. For example see Erik Plug's AER paper "Estimating the effect of mother's schooling using a sample of adoptees" (2004), 94(1), 358-368.
Such a model essentially relies on the assumption that the only difference between biological and adopted children is that the parents are genetically related to one and not the other.
But adopted children may differ systematically for other reasons and the behaviour of parents towards such children may also differ so its unclear to me that this is a good natural experiment. Parents do have biological children by accident for example whereas adoption takes a big investment of time and energy and also requires the consent of others. Consistent with my skepticism about the merits of this "natural experiment" (I think) is the following paper:
Differential parental investment in families with both adopted and genetic children Kyle Gibson
Abstract:
Stepchildren are abused, neglected and murdered at higher rates than those who live with two genetically related parents. Daly and Wilson used kin selection theory to explain this finding and labeled the phenomenon “discriminative parental solicitude.” I examined discriminative parental solicitude in American households composed of both genetic and unrelated adopted children. In these families, kin selection predicts parents should favor their genetic children over adoptees. Rather than looking at cases of abuse, neglect, homicide and other antisocial behavior, I focused on the positive investments parents made in their children as well as the outcomes of each child. The results show that parents invested more in adopted children than in genetically related ones, especially in educational and personal areas. At the same time, adoptees experienced more negative outcomes. They were more likely to have been arrested, to have been on public assistance and to require treatment for drug, alcohol or mental health issues. They also completed fewer years of schooling and were more likely to divorce. In adoptive families, it appears that “the squeaky wheel gets the grease.” Parents invest more in adoptees not because they favor them, but because they are more likely than genetic children to need the help. I conclude that discriminative parental solicitude differs in adoptive and step households because adoptive families generally result from prolonged parenting effort, not mating effort like stepfamilies.
Evolution and Human Behavior 30 (2009) 184–189
Such a model essentially relies on the assumption that the only difference between biological and adopted children is that the parents are genetically related to one and not the other.
But adopted children may differ systematically for other reasons and the behaviour of parents towards such children may also differ so its unclear to me that this is a good natural experiment. Parents do have biological children by accident for example whereas adoption takes a big investment of time and energy and also requires the consent of others. Consistent with my skepticism about the merits of this "natural experiment" (I think) is the following paper:
Differential parental investment in families with both adopted and genetic children Kyle Gibson
Abstract:
Stepchildren are abused, neglected and murdered at higher rates than those who live with two genetically related parents. Daly and Wilson used kin selection theory to explain this finding and labeled the phenomenon “discriminative parental solicitude.” I examined discriminative parental solicitude in American households composed of both genetic and unrelated adopted children. In these families, kin selection predicts parents should favor their genetic children over adoptees. Rather than looking at cases of abuse, neglect, homicide and other antisocial behavior, I focused on the positive investments parents made in their children as well as the outcomes of each child. The results show that parents invested more in adopted children than in genetically related ones, especially in educational and personal areas. At the same time, adoptees experienced more negative outcomes. They were more likely to have been arrested, to have been on public assistance and to require treatment for drug, alcohol or mental health issues. They also completed fewer years of schooling and were more likely to divorce. In adoptive families, it appears that “the squeaky wheel gets the grease.” Parents invest more in adoptees not because they favor them, but because they are more likely than genetic children to need the help. I conclude that discriminative parental solicitude differs in adoptive and step households because adoptive families generally result from prolonged parenting effort, not mating effort like stepfamilies.
Evolution and Human Behavior 30 (2009) 184–189
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Genetic markers as instrumental variables
This looks pretty interesting, a nice combination of econometrics, genetics & epidemiology
Genetic Markers as Instrumental Variables:An Application to Child Fat Mass and Academic Achievement
Stephanie von Hinke Kessler Scholder, George Davey Smith, Debbie A. Lawlor,Carol Propper,Frank Windmeijer
The use of genetic markers as instrumental variables (IV) is receiving increasing attention from economists. This paper examines the conditions that need to be met for genetic variants to be used as instruments. We combine the IV literature with that from genetic epidemiology, with an application to child adiposity (fat mass, determined by a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan) and academic performance. OLS results indicate that leaner children perform slightly better in school tests compared to their more adipose counterparts, but the IV findings show no evidence that fat mass affects academic outcomes.
Genetic Markers as Instrumental Variables:An Application to Child Fat Mass and Academic Achievement
Stephanie von Hinke Kessler Scholder, George Davey Smith, Debbie A. Lawlor,Carol Propper,Frank Windmeijer
The use of genetic markers as instrumental variables (IV) is receiving increasing attention from economists. This paper examines the conditions that need to be met for genetic variants to be used as instruments. We combine the IV literature with that from genetic epidemiology, with an application to child adiposity (fat mass, determined by a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan) and academic performance. OLS results indicate that leaner children perform slightly better in school tests compared to their more adipose counterparts, but the IV findings show no evidence that fat mass affects academic outcomes.
Friday, November 27, 2009
New IZA Paper: What Can We Learn From Molecular Genetics
Nature, Nurture and Egalitarian Policy: What Can We Learn from Molecular Genetics?
by Petter Lundborg, Anders Stenberg
(November 2009)
Abstract:
This brief paper draws attention to molecular genetic research which may provide a new dimension to our understanding of how socioeconomic outcomes are generated. In particular, we provide an overview of the recently emerging evidence of gene-environment interaction effects. This literature points out specific policy areas which may compensate individuals carrying genetic risks, without resorting to gene mapping of the population. Such policies would also increase intergenerational mobility if genetic and/or environmental risk factors are more common in socially disadvantaged groups.
by Petter Lundborg, Anders Stenberg
(November 2009)
Abstract:
This brief paper draws attention to molecular genetic research which may provide a new dimension to our understanding of how socioeconomic outcomes are generated. In particular, we provide an overview of the recently emerging evidence of gene-environment interaction effects. This literature points out specific policy areas which may compensate individuals carrying genetic risks, without resorting to gene mapping of the population. Such policies would also increase intergenerational mobility if genetic and/or environmental risk factors are more common in socially disadvantaged groups.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)