American Academy of Political and Social Science

Genetic Configurations of Political Phenomena: New Theories, New Methods Author(s): Ira H. Carmen Reviewed work(s): Source: Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 614, The Biology of Political Behavior (Nov., 2007), pp. 34-55 Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. in association with the American Academy of Political and Social Science Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25097961 . Accessed: 16/04/2012 16:25
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Sage Publications, Inc. and American Academy of Political and Social Science are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.

http://www.jstor.org

Recent and

Genetic Configurations of Political

Phenomena:

is insensitivity, as a biologically politics More specifically, political phenomenon. or scientists know precious little about either genetics In this article, the author pre dynamics. evolutionary sents a new the theory?sociogenomics?to replace science. of yesterday's conceptions political shopworn The author then demonstrates how social scientists can their last throes. Their on salient weakness to bordering orchestrated ignorance, attitudes and behav genes coding for baseline political iors. The will serve of sociogenomics and methods theory to the social sciences with the natural sciences synthesize so that the in a broader consilient framework, laboratory of Darwinian Aristotelian Keywords: investigation investigation. genetics; imaging; resonance twin studies; magnetic consilience sociogenomics; can become the laboratory

research by E. O. Wilson, Alford-Hibbing, Carmen, that the competing social science indicates are in of behavioralism and rational choice paradigms others

employ the tools ofmolecular biology to flesh out the

of

New Theories, New Methods

IRA H. CARMEN

By

is a discipline in need of a What else is new? Political paradigm. our could not predecessors Fifty years ago, even agree on what to call their academic domi ciles: did we live in departments of govern ment, of politics, or of political science? Were we institutionalists or behavioralists? Did we believe in natural laws or natural rights? Ifwe were in the business of theory construction, could "theory" also mean normative theory? science in the empiricism of behavioralism?steeped and biases of social psychology and premises come under attitudinal inference?has long since of rational from the deductivism challenge
Ira H. fessor Carmen, of political is a pro Ph.D., University ofMichigan, the Institute science and a member of Today, the waters are as murky as ever. The

for Genomic Biology at theUniversityof Illinois.He is the author ofCloning and theConstitution (1986) and Politics in the Laboratory (2004), both with the
University Press. He was elected to mem ofWisconsin in 1996, Genome in the Human Organization bership NIHs Recombinant and he served as a member of the

DNA Advisory Committee from 1990 to 1994.

DOI: 10.1177/0002716207305271

34 ANNALS, AAPSS, 614, November 2007

GENETIC CONFIGURATIONS OF POLITICAL PHENOMENA

35

in the premises and biases of the economic marketplace and choice?steeped of the Those who hold dear to the preachments Rawlsian philosophy. must fend off the rapacious deconstructionists who argue not Enlightenment science. only against scripture but against will not even This article will not engage those who do not believe in science; it those who do not believe in political science. As E. O. Wilson (1999, 269) engage has implied, in each and every bona fide competition between the theory and some other practice of science and the theory and practice of calling, science has won out. This article will engage the central question at issue for science political in our time: how can we construct an for the grand pur overarching paradigm pose of at long last ending the internecine squabbles among those of us who believe in the scientific pursuit of things political?

[Behavioralists

and rational

choicers]

eschew

study of the human political species as a whatever to say about thedrivingforce of all
other species' attitudinal and behavioral repertoires: genetics. means species, which they have nothing

The principle "squabble" continues to be between behavioralists and rational choicers (Alford and Hibbing 2004 [hereinafter A-H], 707), with each side ele of the opposition. Behavioralists gantly dissecting the weaknesses emphasize their commitment to investigating the attitudes and actions of real people joust ing for influence and power; rational actor models, they claim, are effective only in illuminating the politics of "unreal" people wallowing in acultural preferences. Social choice advocates counter with proofs that humans are fully capable of what is good for them politically and acting accordingly; they scoff at the knowing behavioralists' reliance upon socialization and group identification as result-ori ented conditioning agencies. Moreover, both sides find themselves under fire from New Institutionalists who contend that politics cannot be ripped from the contexts of formal and informal decision-making trappings. The core thesis of this article is simply that these competing paradigms fail because they are not scientific enough. Put succinctly, they eschew a study of the human political species as a species, which means theyhave nothing whatever to say about the driving force of all other species' attitudinal and behavioral repertoires: genetics. The years 2004 and 2005 have seen the dawn of a new subfield, a new

36

THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

focus for political science: "genetics and politics." During that two-year period, Alford and Hibbing published two salient reports developing the genetics/politics nexus, while Carmen published a monograph staking out the broader lineaments of the new subfield. Taken together, these writings do far more than provide a a new on human DNA as precursor of emphasis things political. They inspire out of those tools of the natural science trade that beg for adoption by fleshing our as an discipline if it hopes to achieve full-blown status empirical angle of vision. scholarly

Twin Studies

Social psychologists have been gathering voluminous data on identical and fra ternal twins for at least thirtyyears, both in the United States and abroad. These con findings have been seized upon only recently by political scientists, and they stitute the first building block for sociogenomics investigation. Identical twins are as respects their nuclear DNA, while fraternal twins virtually congruent genetically are no more related than any other two brothers or sisters sharing the genetically same biological parents. Twin study specialists have published detailed reports doc umenting the "heritability quotients" (HQs) arising from comparisons between the two cohorts. By HQ ismeant the variation between them that can be ascribed to concern to us are heritabilities in the context of genetic differences. Of especial behavioral propensity. "Behavioral" is defined broadly to include personality and is that when comparing identicals (monozy ideology. The conventional wisdom and fraternals (dizygotes), the heritability score for an array of behavioral gotes) traits is about .50 (Robins 2005). This means that, on average, the variation between cluster members is .50; that is, 50 percent of these behavioral differences see Wilson can be attributed to 1999, genetics (for the computational method, The other 50 percent is largely a function of unshared experiences. (For a 151). see et al. 2005.) Hughes study implicitly challenging the high HQs recited here, Even political scientists who eschew an overt "genetics and politics" commitment have spotted the implications of these data for their own scholarship. Take the pub lic law research agenda. In his early work on jurimetrics, Schubert (1965) relied on "attitudes" as the key independent variable, and by attitudes he meant what the authors of The American Voter (Campbell et al. 1964) meant?social psychological affinities. Today's attitudinalists sound a somewhat different note.
genetic Although dence from the the variance . . . the evi correct" of behavior may not be "politically explanations . . . studies of identical twins reared is About half of apart compelling: in several that tie closely to traits, including attitudes, political personality

can be attributedto genetic diversity.(Segal and Spaeth 1993, 234)

The most oft-cited twin study data are drawn from repositories inMinnesota and Virginia. Reported below are some of the major findings relevant to political science. By a "politically relevant" repertoire or variable is meant a behavioral through their conventional propensity which social scientists have associated with some political dynamic. The extent to which particular genes scholarship

GENETIC CONFIGURATIONS OF POLITICAL PHENOMENA

37

a causal role in or collectively play determining the expression of such singly is the overriding long-term question before us. propensities Alford, Funk, and Hibbing (2005 [hereinafter A-F-H]) were provided access to Eaves et al. s (1999) Virginia data set. The salient heritabilities they have pub lished are all statistically significant at the .01 level. They essentially track respon dents' support for issue positions, and virtually all significant policy items on the are contemporary agenda represented. The highest quotient (.51) is for the death inA-H), and the lowest (.27) is for segregation. Taken at face value penalty (cited and given our discipline s bias in favor of environmental/cultural determinants, these results should send shock waves through our ranks. But we need to dig a .36 HQ, no yet it could do deeper. For the Virginia sample, "socialism" elicits better than a .14 in an Australian study.Does the termmean such different things in these two universes? More important, the aggregate score for "conservatism" across a number of studies is et al. 1999; Martin approximately .45 (A-F-H; Eaves et al. 1986; Tellegen et al. 1988); however, the term "liberalism" achieves an .18.We would certainly expect the concepts of "conservatism" underwhelming we have defined and "liberalism" to trigger about the same level of acceptance, if them in the same way so that each is the obverse of the other. As I shall show in
a moment, this was not the case here.

to to say, there is no "death policy positions penalty gene." Responses or loaded words and phrases (e.g., "Moral Majority," which achieved a culturally .40), to the extent that they implicate heritability, must link to some larger attitu dinal/behavioral configuration(s) that is/are genetically influenced. There is an as to the parameters of this ongoing, noteworthy debate larger phenomenon. Some commentators argue for a strong relationship between political ideology and psychological profiles (Tetlock 1983, 1984; Jost et al. 2003); others disagree come (Greenberg and Jonas 2003; Alford and Hibbing 2006). Most of the data were cited in Carmen from the Minnesota studies and (2004). Others are included for the first time in the political science literature with this writing. They range from baseline happiness (.80) to anxiety (.32) (Lemery and Doelger 2005; Lykken and Tellegen 1996). Both of these have been tied directly to U.S. so also has presidential behavior (Barber 1972); novelty-seeking (.40) (Hamer and Copeland Political scientists who study cooperation/defection would 1998). to know that the HQ for altruism is .50 (Rushton, Littlefield, and certainly want Lumsden 1986), and those who investigate rationality ought to benefit from the for general intelligence is .52 (Plomin et al. 1994). knowledge that the HQ scores for radicalism and are robust Heritability right-wing authoritarianism (Eaves and Eysenck 1974; McCourt et al. 1999). Taken together, the statistically for issue positions and theoretically relevant significant HQs psychological indices would seem to establish a prima facie case of linkage. The presumption, at this stage of the dialogue, is rebuttable. The HQ for the Big Five (neuroticism, extraversion, conscientiousness, and agreeableness, be .50 (Bouchard and McGue 2003); however, taken as a whole, openness) may the set is unrelated to political ideology (Alford and Hibbing 2006). And so, the Needless

38

THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

runs, "the political realm may have unique biological substrates (and in any event, much work needs to be done to flesh out perhaps genetic markers)"; the heritabilities not only of personal temperament but also of social tempera tem ment (responses triggered by "small-scale social situations") and political for the structure and conduct of group life") (Alford and perament ("preferences returns us to consid Hibbing 2006, 6). It is the latter constellation of values that eration of the conservative-liberal dimension. The conservative-liberal dichotomy is the most commonly probed ideological in our literature. Untutored in that literature, twin study specialists not affinity show little interest in developing standardized tests to flesh out its dynamics only but sometimes provide precious for respondents. Both the little guidance and Australia research studies included the following instruction: "Here Virginia is a list of various topics. Please indicate whether or not you agree with each topic Yes or No as appropriate. If you are uncertain, please circle ?" And yet by circling the HQs for conservatism are fairly consistent and high. This is the case even when "conservatism" means "aggregate of policy preferences" (A-F-H). What we need are two uniform questionnaire rosters, one administered to conservatives argument

and the other to liberals. These clusters would be identified via pretests. The items should de-emphasize policy preferences; they should be predicated on per ceptions and dispositions for and against political change and inequality which us et al. 2003) are the critical underlying variables. The theory informs (Jost Research Center (Ann Arbor, Michigan) has developed inquiries of this Survey and none have been employed of late. kind, though they require fine-tuning Rossiter (1962, 16-17, 74, 168) argued that conservative legions are divided
between "traditionalists," who are constitutionalists, and

who

of change as well as reform [and who] live in a state of acute a cultural Liberals, corresponding display presumably, schizophrenia." In fact, years ago many observers noted that a substantial number of dichotomy. ex-communists sat on the editorial board of the National Review. Can there be genetic antecedents linking hard-core conservatism and hard-core liberalism, is the .40 to .65 cultural contri wherein the particular ideological predisposition items to genetically bution? Applying properly constructed sets of questionnaire cohorts would separate out various types of conservatives and liberals organized and then penetrate the heritability dimension. That study is now under way (Carmen 2007). are "enemies

"pure

traditionalists,"

Genetic

Procedures,

Genetic

Precursors

are now to give the notion of "genetics and pol prepared Presumably skeptics itics" half a chance: twin study data may have pockmarks but their central mes sage is too clear simply to ignore. The fallback position for those remaining is not difficult to imagine: show us the genes. Scientists have been unconvinced here before. Twenty years ago, when entomologists and lower-order mammalian

GENETIC CONFIGURATIONS OF POLITICAL PHENOMENA

39

experimentalists began the quest for behavioral genetic antecendents, "doubting same reservations. Thomases" expressed the They have been proven wrong.

Twenty years ago, when entomologists and lower-order mammalian experimentalists began the quest for behavioral genetic antecendents, "doubting reservations. Thomases" same expressed the They have been proven wrong.

in nonhuman species that, if Approximately thirty genes have been isolated isolated inHomo sapiens, would provide important information as to our politi cal behavior repertoires. Researchers have determined the structure and func more each year about how to shed tion of each gene. Our colleagues are learning on the of life forms, and our knowledge of insect, mouse, and pri light sociality common mate politics has grown enormously. It is knowledge among molecular that the fundamental genes responsible for human action are con biologists served up and down the phylogenetic tree. Each and every recent discovery? genes influencing stress vulnerability in rats (Francis et al. 1999), foraging in (Ben-Shahar et al. 2002), social feeding in nematodes (Sokolowski honeybees 2002), aggressiveness inOld World monkeys (cited inGibbons 2004), and faith fulness inmale prairie voles (Hammock and Young 2005)?has its counterpart in the human. All are either orthologs or homologs of DNA found on every double our helix of every cell in our bodies. The exact species workings of these genes in is a front-and-center concern of our science peers. biological some of the tools available for is Insight into methodological analyzing genes The idea is either to insert a gene of interest into the DNA of indispensable. some other species and assess its impact in behavioral contexts or delete a gene to assess how that of interest from a species' DNA in organism will manage behavioral contexts without it. Again, precision is the order of the day: experi mentalists must be able to chart which al?ele (version) is to be manipulated come in different versions as with blue/brown (genes eyes), what protein will be that al?ele, and, of course, the hypothesized, and later triggered by proved, behavioral repertoire resulting therefrom. Again, the genes employed have human counterparts, and the action patterns resulting from their expression have clear political implications if the terms "power" and "influence" mean in anything the context of life form scrutiny. To illustrate: geneticists bred a "fierce" strain of

40 mice

THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

and then inserted into its embryos a human gene matching the missing sociality rodent gene. Viola! The superaggressive mice returned to normal into lower-order creatures will be (Abrahams et al. 2005). Putting human DNA in years to come. commonplace Those who believe that investigating behavioral genes in lower-order organ in the human constitutes some isms is acceptable but that investigating them are in for a rude research qualitative, unbridgeable leap awakening. While are scattered and, incredibly, have never been appropriately orga reports widely nized, collated, and contrasted, Table 1 attempts to convey to a political science in chronological order audience the basics of what needs to be said. Proceeding of discovery, Table 1 shows fifteen gene-related sequences with clear political in a zone area between disease genes and implications. Some of these fall twilight How does one classify clinical depression, personality genes. bipolarism, and attention-deficit disorder? There are thousands of Americans and many thou sands of non-Americans who exercise free speech, vote, contribute money to political causes, and "play political games" each and every day who could slide one of these behavioral are categories. People who conveniently into clinically handle stress far less satisfactorily than others, and there ought to be depressed a stress overload and various strains of political orien high correlation between tation and participation (Carmen 2004). It used to be that scholars bandied about terms as "psychopathic personality" and "manic depression." such wastebasket Genetics has rendered those terms obsolete and will render at least some of the we as obsolete. The more refined the distinction, the terminology employ today better the opportunity to link one of these configurations to some political mind
set or action-set.

It used to be that scholars bandied about such

"psychopathic Genetics and "manic depression." personality" has rendered those terms obsolete and will render at least some of the terminology we as obsolete. employ today wastebasket terms as

As one glances down the Table 1 list, it is easy to spot the importance of the neurotransmitters serotonin and dopamine in influencing sociality. Consider the

HUMAN GENETIC

PRECURSORS

TABLE 1 OF POLITICALLY

RELEVANT RE

Gene 5 markers 5-HTT promoter

Chromosome X 17

Allelic Configuration Presence One/two of markers short versions

Protein Reaction Unknown Serotonin overload

Behavioral Male

Propensity

homosexual

orientation Neuroticism; anxiety; hostility; harm avoidance seeking

D4DR

11

One/two

long-form to versions (eight eleven 48-letter repeats) of

Dopamine overload

Risk-taking; novelty

DAT1

Frequency

10-repeat 40-BP al?ele

Dopamine overload

Generalized obsessive

anxiety;

compulsiveness; depression (subjects: children) Attention-deficit disorder

DAT1 COMT MAOA

promoter X

10-repeat al?ele 22 Diallelic (met/val) polymorphism Shorter versions of 30 BP repeats (2-3 copies)

Homozygous

for

Dopamine overload Dopamine catabolism Neurotransmitter deficit plus

High (orlow)
Inappropriate

executive cognition aggressiveness;

childhood

physical abuse

impulsiveness; violence

4x to

TABLE 1 (CONTINUED)

Gene 5-HTT promoter

Chromosome

Allelic Configuration for Homozygous short version (44 missing base pairs) Long-form promoter C al?ele Absence

Protein Reaction Serotonin overload plus high-stress events overload

Behavioral Clinical

Propensity

17

depression

D4DR D4DR

11 11

al?ele plus SNP

Dopamine

Novelty

seeking in young females compulsive

of al?ele 2

in 48-letter polymorphism repeat of exon 3 of the SNP 173-BP

Dopamine

overload

Obsessive disorder

CRH

marker

Presence

Hormonal overexpression Altered reception signaling Diminished serotonin in the brain

gene

GRK3 Tph2 VMAT2

22 12 10

Inhibition to unfamiliarity; proneness to anxiety in novel situations Bipolarism Unipolar depression

P-5 prometer variant Recessive al?ele

Polymorphism A33050C presents at least one C Missing sequences in an SNP 2, 3, or 5 repeats

Enhanced monoamine packaging neuronal Damaged circuits Serotonin overload caused by ACC shrinkage

Self-transcendence

(spirituality)
Dyslexia Risk for violence impulsiveness and

DCDC2 MAOA

6 X

GENETIC CONFIGURATIONS OF POLITICAL PHENOMENA

43

17. The gene in question controls the sero 5-HTT promoter on chromosome tonin transporter function. Initially, scientists were unable to associate that gene with a whole battery of behavioral characteristics. What they eventually did dis cover was that a critical difference lay not in the gene coding sequences but in the promoter regions located "upstream" on the double helix. This system can or normal, a "short" version. The a system long, "long" version and display (amere 32 percent of the general population) effectively clears serotonin deposits; the short mutational system (68 percent), which is dominant, permits serotonin accrual (the percentages provided in Carmen [2004, 178] are incorrect). (Note: are recessive as with, say, the most deleterious al?eles cystic fibrosis mutation; others, such as the Huntingtons chorea killer, are dominant.) What is the genetic disparity? The normal version contains sixteen sequence repeats approximately or T-G), while the shorter twenty base pairs per repeat (a base pair is either A-C version contains fourteen of these repeats, a difference, then, of forty-four nucleotide sequences. There is a high correlation between the "short" version regime and neuroticism, and further tests showed that three particular manifes tations of neuroticism?anxiety, angry hostility, and impulsiveness?are signifi related to the short version. Yet another high correlation was reported for cantly harm avoidance, especially worry, pessimism, fear of uncertainty, and fatigability. Neuroticism has an HQ of .50 (Carmen 2004), and geneticists have concluded that the short version al?ele (whether in homozygous or heterozygous form) accounts for as much as 50 percent of that differential. Should political scientists twin study data on neuroticism and its subtraits with 5-HTT promoter synthesize or winners-losers, the discipline configurations of subject leaders-followers would be taking a bold step forward in defining political behavior. Now consider dopamine. Hamer has investigated the dynamics of what he calls the "novelty" or thrill-seeking syndrome. High scorers on questionnaire to openness in items enjoy the play of new ideas; they are predisposed thought and often action. Low scorers are cautious and conventional, prudent and is .40 heritable. Hamer did not inquire?we need to orderly. Novelty-seeking scorers correlate with liberalism and if low scorers correlate with inquire?if high conservatism when we square offmonozygotes against dizygotes. The misnamed gene, is located on chromosome 11. This gene "novelty gene," actually the D4DR makes a dopamine receptor protein. Rather like serotonin, dopamine is one of those brain chemicals that needs to be at equilibrium in the typical case, or per worse arise. overload correlates with highly sonality problems and Dopamine behavior: too much gambling, too much sex, too much drinking.What about risky one define "too much too much gene politics? How would politics"? The D4DR contains a series of letter repeats. The average number of repeats runs forty-eight from four to seven; those with two or three are extraordinarily effective in clear ing dopamine, whereas those with eight or more (the ceiling is eleven) are not very effective at all. If a subject has two "longs" (one from the father, one from the mother) or a "long" and a "short," the correlation with novelty seeking is far than for a subject exhibiting two "shorts." That is, acute greater people with less centers have a genetic impetus to behavioral pleasure develop compensating

44

THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

gene accounts for only propensities. Hamer concludes modestly that the D4DR 4 percent of the .40HQ (Hamer and 1998; Ridley 2000). Of course, it Copeland would be wrong to assume that "pure types" are forever gene-driven, that they can do their firmly established mind-sets. We take nothing to counterbalance action contrary to our genetic pulls and pushes all the time. Still, these efforts are to the fundamental role of genetics in politics. corollary Table 1 highlights further instances of dopamine circulation as politically rel evant antecedent. Note that in these cases either the critical gene or its allelic precursor displays a strong associ configuration varies. For example, the D4DR ation with obsessive Here, the critical genetic structure is not a compulsiveness. versus "short" occurrence; it is the absence of al?ele 2 in the question of "long" located in exon 3 of this gene (coding regions are forty-eight-letter polymorphism called exons; DNA sequences that do not code for proteins are called introns). In trans another instance, the DAT1 gene on chromosome 5, the only dopamine is called "gen have yet to be tested?what porter, enhances in children?adults eralized anxiety." The key parameter is the frequency of a forty-base pair repeat, as to nine copies. And namely, where the governing al?ele features ten opposed attention where subjects are homozygous for the ten-repeat al?ele in DAT1, deficit disorders emerge; again, the line is not bright between personality and gene on chromosome 22 (see Table 1) hygienic properties. Finally, the COMT metabolizes released dopamine. It exhibits a diallelic polymorphism: met and val. Executive cognition, as demonstrated throughWisconsin Card Sorting Test facil occurs ity, is enhanced significantly in subjects displaying twomets; the contrary in two vals. In other words, increased circulation subjects displaying dopamine detracts from mental acuity. As the genes coding for intellectual gifts are deci ever clearer. phered, the keys to political perspicacity should become

As the genes codingfor intellectualgiftsare deciphered, the keys to political perspicacity

should become ever clearer.

the oddest, and certainly one of the most controversial, DNA Perhaps itemized in Table 1 is Hamer s inaptly dubbed "God gene" (Hamer sequences returns have indicated that some people display a greater 2004). Questionnaire sense of "self-transcendence" than others, what Hamer called a sense of spiritu he said, "provides a numerical measure of people's capacity to ality. Spirituality, reach out beyond themselves." Australian twin study findings had pegged self transcendence as .48 heritable. Could spirituality be, in considerable component,

GENETIC CONFIGURATIONS OF POLITICAL PHENOMENA

45

a to correlate self-transcendence with the genetic artifact? Hamer attempted D4DR. Result: negative. He then tried to correlate self-transcendence with sero tonin DNA precursors. Result: negative. But Hamer hit the jackpot when he VMAT2 gene on chro sought association between self-transcendence and the mosome 10. This is a less specialized gene than the others responsible for neu into rotransmitter function. Its protein packages all of the many monoamines vector units, bundles the brain uses to store signaling molecules. A cer secretory tain polymorphism can present two al?eles, one inwhich a key letter is an A and a on either of the two a second inwhich that letter is a C. If subjects carry C inherited 10s, then theywill score much higher on a spirituality index than those occurs in about 28 percent of carrying two As. The C configuration apparently our Is this a gene also highly indicative of altruism? To what species. Query: extent do spirituality and cooperation overlap? Are there ethnic differences in these DNA carriages? Ultimately, "The challenge is to link genes and their products into functional A prolifer pathways, circuits, and networks" (Loomis and Steinberg 1995, 649). literature in political science stresses the need to address decision making ating as a neuroscientific (McDermott 2004). Table 1 addresses part of phenomenon the challenge?but only part?by pinpointing protein reactions and behavioral on the missing connection: the neurophysio repertoires. Table 2 presents data structures as action logical rules and processes that capture the brain's several of political contests. Virtually all these data were systems during the play recruited by employing the functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) tech as in a wide variety of these contests. Table 2 takes nology subjects participated note of the format or game being played, the identities of the competitors, the or result of the contest, and the winners and losers object broadly defined. Of optimal value would be experiments conjoining genetic and cranial para meters. Only three Table 2 investigations qualify, unfortunately. One should keep inmind that this is a very new field; all Table 2 studies are post-2000. Table 1 a strong correlation between those carrying the "short" version of the reported 5-HTT promoter and anxiety. This finding received a powerful boost when researchers demonstrated a statistically significant correlation between subjects one copy of the "short" serotonin carrying at least transporter promoter mecha nism and elevated activity in their right amygdalas to anxiety following exposure pictures. Control groups made up of "long-long" individuals recorded producing significantly lower levels of response (the Hariri et al. [2002] study). Acting in reaction to messages received from the thalamus, the instinctively amygdala sets up the first line of defense against perceived dangers. The linkages with the are serotonin carriage system show thatwhen these particularly fearful, subjects overreacts. often for genetic reasons, the right amygdala in the second of these An interesting contrast is provided investigations, this time the gene under the MAOA on the X chromosome. Its job is analysis being to break down neurotransmitter to deposits help smooth communication among neurons. The MAOA promoter is a polymorphism of thirtybase pairs repeatable from two to five times. The shorter versions, standing alone, may quite possibly

GAME THEORETIC 05

TABLE 2 OR OTHER NEUROPHYSIOLOGICAL

MODELS

OF PO

Format (Game) Working memory Players met vs. val COMT al?ele cohorts Long HTT Female vs. short; 5 cohorts bargainers Object or Result Winners met al?ele Long allelic regime Mutual cooperators

Los val al?ele One/two allelic Defectors

tasks(MRI)

Prefrontal cortical efficiency Right amygdala overreaction Reward system regions (nucleus accumbens, caudate nucleus, etc.) are activated reaction vs. dorsolateral prefrontal cortex reaction in

Anxiety-producing pictures (MRI) Prisoners Dilemma

(MRI)
Ultimatum

(MRI)

game

Unfair offerers vs. buyers

Bilateral anterior insula

Passion

rules: offer

Reason

rejected

punishm

tempor Left amygdala involvement in threat-related activity Uninhibited kids/adults

Anger and fear face

Human

gaze (MRI)

responses

subject to

anger/fear, direct/averted 4-fold table Amygdalar Adults coded uninhibited as as response to novel vs. familiar faces inhibited or

Anger/averted and fear/direct gazes differentially more as measured threatening by amygdala response Inhibited subjects exhibited stronger amygdalar responses to novel faces than uninhibited subjects Recognizing cooperators activates left amygdala, striatum and other reward centers

buyers

Right amy noninvo

in thre

activity

Inhibite
adults

(MRI)
Sequential Prisoners Dilemma plus facial assessment

kids
Bargainers

Cooperators

Defectors

(MRI)
Monetary payoffs among males

Givers vs. recipient cheaters

Subcortical

striatum activation

(PET)

same as (revenge centers) (2002): anticipation of Rilling a preferred social outcome

Giver s passion

Givers

re

Partisan

(MRI)

images

Dems.

and Reps.

VPC:

affinity (limbic); DPC: alienation (reason); ACC: conflict (mediation) nucleus activation linked to benevolent

Admiration

Antipathy

10-round trust

Investors vs. trustees (1) Normal subjects; (2) normals vs. OFC defectives

Caudate

Altruists

Cheaters

game (MRI)
Playingeard selection from two decks with known and unknown properties (MRI) Cheaters and noncheaters Anger and fear face

reciprocity in trustees Amygdala and OFC modulate striatum

Risk probabilities

Ambiguity

probabil

Male

and female

observers MAOA (low) vs.

in empathy-related cortices among men when cheaters are punished Differential activation of Reduction amygdala, ACC, and OFC

N/A MAOA (highs)

N/A

gaze (MRI)

MAOA (high)
healthy subjects

MAOA (l

increase

amygda activati decrease Differential connectivity: amygdala and OFC; other cranial disparities Females Males:

and OFC Anger and fear face

gaze (MRI)

MAOA (low) male

vs. female; healthy subjects

co

cognitiv

impairm

heighten emotion

amygda

hippocam overreac Ultimatum game Compromised right DLPFC subjects vs. normal subjects DLPFC deficiency undermines ability to reject unfair offers Normals Impaireds

48

THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

even precipitate impulsivity, aggression (see Table 1; the Caspi et al. [2002] study). For certain, the shorter versions slow enzymatic expression thus causing neuro transmitter and "cleanup" deficits as regards serotonin. inefficiency Utilizing samples of MAOA "long" version and "short" version healthy subjects, researchers presented each cluster with a battery of angry and fearful pictorial face gazes. For respondents with genetically compromised expression rates, func was enhanced while ante tional MRI tests revealed that left amygdalar activation rior cingulate cortical (ACC) and orbitofrontal cortical (OFC) routines were attenuated. Furthermore, overall connectivity between the amygdala and the OFC was clearly reduced inmales. The most robust structural were in changes the ACC, the brain region with the highest of serotonin receptors and a density in amygdalar (Table 2; the Meyer response key regulatory mechanism et al. [2006] studies). Lindenberg Table 1 also reported a high correlation between participants met bearing the version of the COMT and high executive cognition. gene, dopamine catabolism, tests were then utilized to measure When MRI prefrontal cortical efficiency in met versus val task performers, themet al?ele individuals scored working memory much higher (the Egan et al. [2001] study). A useful experiment would involve presentation of emotionally arousing pictorial displays to our mets and vals to assess their on ratiocinative skills. impacts The amygdala is a complex, socially relevant information processing center, citations towhich are just now beginning to appear in the political science liter ature. When the typical American white sees a picture of the typical American black, the subject s amygdala fires off an emotional response, a loose translation ofwhich might be: here is someone different.We carry around the genomic bag gage of prehistory when facial recognition developed as a key monitoring device for sorting in-groupers and out-groupers. Environmental conditions can alter the equation. If the typical American white sees a picture of Tiger Woods or Michael are that that individuals Jordan, then chances amygdala will not respond: the sub will have unconsciously coded them as insiders (Carmen 2004, 189-90). ject Table 2 displays useful findings. We now know through functional MRI amyg dalar screenings that inhibited infants grow up generally to be "avoidance" adults, while uninhibited infants grow up generally to be novelty-seeking adults (the Schwartz et al. [2003] study). These tests have also detected differential roles played by the left amygdala and the right amygdala in reacting to "anger faces" and "fear faces." The left amygdala shows a high degree of sensitivity as to whether the stimulus gaze is frontal or averted, whereas the right amygdala is to such nuances (the Adams et al. [2003] unresponsive study). And when indi viduals were well apprised of cooperators, identified them through the having (PD), a game inwhich individuals either cooperate play of Prisoner's Dilemma with or betray one another in accordance with maximizing their own outcome, subsequent facial assessments triggered the left amygdala reacting in concert with such other reward centers as the striatum (the Singer et al. [2004] study) (cf. the quite different cranial responses to cooperators during the actual playing of PD, at least among women) (the Rilling et al. [2002] study). Finally, the amygdala

GENETIC CONFIGURATIONS OF POLITICAL PHENOMENA

49

more active when are along with the orbitofrontal cortex becomes much players to accept rather than risky options, that is, individuals challenged ambiguous much prefer the latter to the former even when the expected payoffs are equal (the Hsu et al. [2005] study). To say thatwe need to appreciate the genetic main a we have learned springs of amygdalar function is gross understatement, though that the stathmin gene is highly expressed in the lateral nucleus of the recently mouse amygdala, and when this gene is knocked out, subjects do not respond either to learned or innate fear (Shumyatsky et al. 2005). are inevitable. to more overtly political choice making Applications University a tentative first of California, Los Angeles, researchers essayed step when, during the 2004 presidential election, they used theMRI technology tomeasure partisan reactions to facial images of President George Bush and Senator John Kerry. They found an intriguing dance between the emotional centers and the cognitive cen and Democrats ters, as both Republicans fought to convince themselves of their candidates' manifest superiority. That these cranial processes can be captured by a further our the tools of biological science?therefore adding layer of richness to of a key political event?is most informative. From these solid understanding empirical findings, the investigators proceeded to spoil the party by jumping to the conclusion that the red state/blue state divide is a fictional artifact of our own self [2005] study). Equally unwarranted is the assertion that deception (the Freedman the divide is in fact an expression of genetically driven "gut" affinities (A-F-H). We have a longway to go before we can demonstrate neurophysiological causation for any cultural cleavage among nation-state electoral camps.

From Genetics

to Genomics

Thus far, our tale has been a commentary on what might be called "socio genetics." The theory,methods, and data reflect the good science of twenty years ago brought up to the present moment by recent discoveries. The orientation is wedded to the structure and function of specific genes acting alone to orchestrate social behaviors in sundry species. Even today, sociogenetics comprises, along a with the policy implications arising therefrom, the paradigmatic stuffof viable "genetics and politics" subfield for our discipline. And yet, as we speak, the term is its genesis and sociogenetics is yielding to the term "sociogenomics." What what does itmean? Access to the human genome, taken as a whole, provides parsimonious entr?e to the investigation of traits of which human social behavior?human complex a traits arise from a political behavior?is prime example. Complex battery of to Gene Robinson a entomolo (2002), genes acting together. According leading gist who coined the term and nurtured its growth into full-fledged paradigmatic status among refers to the social behavior of life biologists, "sociogenomics" forms as an outgrowth of global determinants (that is, genomic patterns) employ a ing comparative species perspective. Sociogenomicists avail themselves of DNA data culled from the fruitfly,the yeast, themouse, and the rat, among many other (Robinson 2002). This species, all of whose genomes have now been sequenced

50

THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

cross-species approach adds a key evolutionary component to sociogenomics. Genes are no longer treated as static entities, frozen intime. Genes evolve as they negotiate the interspecies journey, and they evolve in humans as our species, for ever to maximize reproductive and survival opportunities, copes with seeking and Wilson (1981) had argued that culture itself exogenous stimuli. Lumsden certain genes under selective pressure, thus spawning new al?eles. There placed come under selective pres is evidence that the D4DR dopamine receptor has sure, enhancing Homo sapiens' wanderlust (Olson 2002). There is not much genetics, much less genomics, in Lumsden and Wilson. Sociogenomics provides a canon of truths. corollary article to their Until very recendy, before the dawn of sociogenomics, behavioral traits could be traced down (notwithout difficulty) by utilizing four categories of inquiry: link age analysis, allele-sharing technologies, association studies in humans, and model organism comparisons (Lander and Schork 1994). An in-depth treatment of each is beyond the scope of this article. In candor, political scientists cannot hope to tomention sociogenomic?experiments without form perform sociogenetic?not collaborations with scholars well versed inmolecular biology. They still have a ing responsibility to appreciate the underlying logics and larger theoretical dimen sions of the several procedures mentioned here. Suppose one had wanted, ten years ago, to investigate the genetic antecedents of the conservatism-liberalism attitudinal complex. Itwould first have been necessary to establish objectively the to test and then tree blue phenotypic characteristics forwhich develop family which would serve as transmission models. After a putative gene such as prints those cited inTable 1 had been mapped, the next step would evidently have been to show that allelic concordance occurred more often than what was expected to occur by chance. One would also construct experimental and control groups to compare unrelated affected individuals with unrelated, unaffected individuals. The question would be whether specific al?eles crop up in those displaying a cer tain personality characteristic at a significandy higher frequency. Finally, as we have seen, some genes can be slipped into or out of animal models to pin down can clone mice, precise behavioral manifestations. Now that researchers sheep, we have at our uniform physiological environments for cats, and pigs, disposal in a wide variety of animal contexts. assessing the role of human DNA All of this should sound sufficiently daunting to explain why an empirically in the grounded subfield titled "genetics and politics" has been considered pie At the lowest level of sky. Capturing the human genome changes everything. association the conventional linkage and procedures mentioned magnitude, With the former, researchers, who above have generated impressive new insights. have at their disposal genetic markers highly correlated with certain behavioral tendencies, scan the genome in search of precursor DNA chromosomal locations. The short arm of chromosome 6, the short arm of chromosome 8, and the long arms of chromosomes 13 and 22 seem to be prime locations formutations impli cated in various disorders. With the latter, comparing the presence of candidate genes in those displaying sundry antisocial patterns against those immune from these stresses in the context of genomic investigation has yielded virtually all of the probative data found in Table 1 (Bouchard and McGue 2003, 36).

GENETIC CONFIGURATIONS OF POLITICAL PHENOMENA

51

At a higher level of magnitude, new theory also inspires new methods, and, in this case, the breakthrough procedure of choice is called the microarray gene expression technology. In an array experiment, genetic material from two sources of interest, for example species A and species B, or perhaps a human experi mental and a human control group, are laid on a glass substrate, and scientists measure the levels of expression occurring simultaneously. Subject clusters pro and putative genes of interest contained in these vide DNA samples, samples trigger expression responses from their counterparts in the microarray universe. can Researchers sections on the chip, each one about place billions of DNA bases in length. In a notable study, honeybee specialists tested fifty twenty-five five hundred genes employing seventy-two microarray runs to demonstrate that age-related shifts by adults from hive tasks to foraging tasks could be linked to expression change in 39 percent of the sample; this finding eventually led to on nearly perfect predictions of species behavior based genetic expression pro files (Whitfield et al. 2003). After "competitive hybridization," inwhich single a stranded complementary DNA from the two discrete samples interdigitate, number of Gene X copies in sample A will lead to one greater color-coding (say, red) and a greater number of Gene X copies in sample B will inspire a different more color-coding (say, green). Put precisely, the expressed genes are detected the presence of messenger RNA, which is converted back to by complementary or DNA (genes without introns "junk"). Microarrays have led to startling new genetic discoveries in nonhuman sub jects. To repeat, all these genes have human counterparts; assessing their func If we could apply the tions, however, requires the use of animal models. to humans as we do to we could test microarray procedure honeybees, directly for personality and ideological antecedents in the manner straightforward rescue the described above. As we cannot kill human messenger subjects and RNA expressed in their brains following, say, the some game, we must be play of content now with the rich harvest of behavioral genetic precursors emerging from the laboratories of entomology and related disciplines. a Microarrays become truly robust vehicle for sociogenomics investigation when the experimental data take the form of human single nucleotide polymor All of us share 99.9 percent of our DNA (SNPs). phisms sequence. are stretches ofDNA we do not share, thus we are Polymorphisms ensuring that not all clones. Genes that exhibit different al?eles in different hold the people secret to phenotypic variation. That is, they hold the secret to political attitude and behavior heritabilities. Each one of these is called an SNP. By convention, more than 1 of the population must share the letter substitution. percent solitary The human genome, it is now estimated, contains 9 million SNPs; four hundred thousand of them reside in exons; SNPs responsible for amino acid composition shifts could number two hundred thousand. Also to be accounted for are pro moter region SNPs, which, as we have seen, can have a marked influence in gene expression levels. To repeat: each SNP variation yields a unique al?ele. The Holy Grail in the now well-underway SNP race is the identification of all functional SNPs. This article takes the position that the Holy Grail of human sociogenomics

52

THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

is the totality of functional SNPs coding for behavioral propensities. One of the to SNP keys discovery is the microarray procedure. That is to say,microarrays ferret out disparate gene expression levels in nonhuman subjects, the genes in the behavioral repertoires then provide clues to the identi implicated sundry ties of SNPs in human subjects, following which individual variations are corre scientists lated with behavioral/attitudinal differences. Eventually, political with biological scientists can commence to control for the role of each working gene one by one, folding in as well interspecies and pedigree data. The socio as genetic tasks referred to earlier daunting will become manageable, though exceedingly challenging, sociogenomic tasks.

Genes that exhibitdifferental?eles in different That is, theyhold the secret to political attitude
and behavior heritabilities. people hold the secret to phenotypic variation.

in An alternative vision (Alford and Hibbing 2006, 15) suggests a procedure which individuals provide saliva specimens for genetic information, after which statistical evaluation of correlations between candidate al?eles and behavioral responses can be undertaken. The procedure certainly would permit us to com pare SNP composition with phenotypic reaction; a drawback is that gene expres in saliva (or blood for that matter) unless salivary sion cannot be demonstrated were involved, because messenger RN A in the tests of interest genes implicated to science would be tissue specific to the brain. It is hard to believe that political the DNA relevant to ideology encodes proteins known to be present in saliva. And note, it is proteins, not genes, thatwould show up in saliva following, say, the exercises. Even formicrobiologists, getting from proteins play of game theoretic to DNA is exceedingly difficult. to ascertain RNA in politically relevant messenger Working with molecularists to track relevant proteins the brain and working with molecularists politically is the new world of political science as a science. backward in time to DNA

The Longer View

In 1999, E. O. Wilson endeavored to sketch a coming worldview of scholarly and intellectual inquiry. The term he used to describe the inevitable fusion of all

GENETIC CONFIGURATIONS OF POLITICAL PHENOMENA human

53

is "consilience." He envisioned social science achieving a knowledge as its practitioners labored cheek to jowl with natural scien heightened maturity tists.Already, his ideas have mobilized enlightened souls working in the trenches of other fields to rethink their paradigmatic premises. So we see economists, psy a chologists, and neuroscientists converging into single, unified discipline called neuroeconomics and Rustichini 2004). These scholars have not even (Glimcher bothered to consider political scientists as allies. We are coded as either irrele are vant or hopeless. Perhaps they right. However, they have already committed a fatal Yet to be included in their paradigm is a sociogenomic compo oversight. nent. Those few of us toiling in "genetics and politics" terrain can, this early in the game, claim a leg up on them. The question iswhether our discipline as a whole can achieve a leg up on them. Should we choose to do so,we will make for ourselves a unique contribution in the drive toward consilience. Aristotle, a polit ical science disciplinary founder extraordinaire and the "discoverer" of the DNA saw the end of the tunnel but no ways to reach it. principle (Carmen 2004, 16), a He would enjoy, one fervently hopes, burgeoning consilience of scientific inwhich the various tasks find practitioners in a inquiry laboratory of discovery faithful to the grand empirical enterprise.

References
Abrahams, B. S., et al. 2005. Pathological aggression in "fierce" mice corrected by human nuclear recep tor 2E1. 25 (27): 6263. Journal of Neuroscience Adams, R. B., Jr., et al. 2003. Effects of gaze on amygdala sensitivity to anger and fear faces. Science 300:1536. Alford, J. R., C. L. Funk, and J. R. Hibbing. American Political Science Review 99:153. 2005. Are political orientations genetically transmitted?

-.

Alford, J.R., and J. R. Hibbing. 2004. The origin of politics: An evolutionary theory of political behavior. on Politics 2:707. Perspectives 2006. How are political orientations genetically transmitted? A research agenda? Paper presented at the Midwest Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Chicago. Barber, J.D. 1972. The presidential character. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. that a single nucleotide polymorphism in the promoter of the G pro Barrett, T. B., et al. 2003. Evidence tein receptor kinase 3 gene is associated with bipolar disorder. Molecular Psychiatry 8:546. Ben-Shahar, Y, et al. 2002. Influence of gene action across different time scales on behavior. Science 296:741.

2003. Genetic and environmental influences on human Bouchard, T. J., Jr.,and M. McGue. psychological 54:4. differences. Journal of Neurobiology Campbell, A., P. E. Converse, W E. Miller, and D. E. Stokes. 1964. The American voter. New York: Wiley. Carmen, I. H. 2004. Politics in the laboratory: The constitution of human genomics. Madison: University Wisconsin of Press. -. tomind, to politics: Finding the yellow brick empirical road. Paper presented Science Association Annual Meeting, Chicago. Caspi, A., et al. 2002. Role of genotype in the cycle of violence inmaltreated children. Science 297:851. 2003. Influence of life stress on a in the 5-HTT gene. depression: Moderation by polymorphism Science 301:386. at the Midwest 2007. From genes, Political de Quervain, D., et al. 2004. The neural basis of altruistic punishment. Science 305:1254. the biological and cultural inheritance of Eaves, L., et al. 1999. Comparing personality and social attitudes in the Virginia 30,000 study of twins and their relatives. Twin Research 2:62.

-.

54

THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

Gibbons,

on politics. New York Times, January 18, p. A21. J. 2005. This is your brain A. 2004. Tracking the evolutionary history of a "warrior" gene. Science 304:818. The consilience of brain and decision. Glimcher, P.W, and A. Rustichini. 2004. Neuroeconomics: 306:447. Freedman,

Eaves, L. J., and H. J.Eysenck. 1974. Genetics and the development of social attitudes. Nature 249:288. val 108/158 met genotype on frontal lobe function and risk for Egan, M. F., et al. 2001. Effect of COMT the National Academy of Sciences 98:6917. schizophrenia. Proceedings of transmission across generations of maternal behavior and stress Francis, D., et al. 1999. Nanogenomic in the rat. Science 286:1155. responses

Science

Hamer, D., et al. 1993. A linkage between DNA tion. Science 261:321.

Greenberg, J., and E. Jonas. 2003. Psychological motives and political orientation?The the rigid: Comment on Jost et al. (2003). Psychological Bulletin 129:376. Hamer, D. 2004. The God gene. New York: Doubleday markers on the X chromosome

left, the right, and

and male

sexual orienta

1998. Living with our genes. New York: Anchor. Hamer, D., and P. Copeland. E. A. D., and L. J. Young. 2005. Microsatellite Hammock, instability generates traits. Science 308:1630. sociobehavioral Hariri, A. R., et al. 2002. Serotonin Science 297:400. Hsu, M., et al. 2005. Neural Science 310:1680. Hughes, C,

diversity

in brain and

transporter genetic variation and the response of the human amygdala. to degrees of uncertainty in human decision-making.

systems responding

as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin 129:339. Jost, J.T., et al. 2003. Political conservatism trust in a two-person economic exchange. King-Casas, B., et al. 2005. Getting to know you: Reputation and Science 308:78. Knoch, D., et al. 2006. Diminishing 314:829. reciprocal fairness by disrupting

et al. 2005. Origins of individual differences in theory of mind: From nature to nurture? Child 76:356. Development L. K., et al. 2000. Prediction of dopamine transporter binding availability by genotype: A pre Jacobsen, liminary report. American Journal of Psychiatry 157:1700.

the right prefrontal cortex. Science

Lander, E. S., and N. J. Schork. 1994. Genetic dissection of complex traits. Science 265:2037. Lee, H.-J., et al. 2003. Allelic variants interaction of dopamine receptor D4 polymorphism correlate with traits in young Korean female population. American Journal ofMedical Genetics Part B, personality 118B:76. In of psychopathology. 2005. Genetic vulnerabilities to the development Lemery, K. S., and L. Doelger. CA: Sage. of psychopathology, ed. B. L. Hankin and J. R. Z. Abela. Thousand Oaks, Development Lesch, K.-P, et al. 1996. Association of anxiety-related traitswith a polymorphism in the serotonin trans porter gene regulatory system. Science 274:1527. Loomis, W. F., and P.W. Sternberg. 1995. Genetic networks. Science 269:649. 1981. Genes, mind, and culture. Cambridge, Lumsden, C. J., and E. O. Wilson. Press. MA: Harvard University

is a stochastic phenomenon. 1996. Happiness Lykken, D., and A. Tellegen. et al. 1986. Transmission of social attitudes. Proceedings Martin, N. G, Sciences 83:4364.

Science 7:186. Psychological of of the National Academy

influence examined in revisited: Genetic and environmental McCourt, K., et al. 1999. Authoritarianism twins reared apart and together. Personality of Individual Differences 27:985. R. 2004. The feeling of rationality: The meaning of neuroscientific advances for political sci McDermott, ence. Perspectives on Politics 2:691.

et al. 2005. DCDC2 is associated with reading disability and modulates neuronal development Meng, H., in the brain. Proceedings of theNational Academy of Sciences 102:17053. in of genetic risk for impulsivity and violence A., et al. 2006. Neural mechanisms Meyer-Lindenberg, humans. Proceedings of theNational Academy of Sciences 103:6269. the dopamine (DRD4) Millet, B., et al. 2003. Association between gene and obsessive receptor D4 disorder. American Journal ofMedical Genetics 116B:55. compulsive

GENETIC CONFIGURATIONS OF POLITICAL PHENOMENA

Olson, S. 2002. Seeking the signs of selection. Science 298:1324. Plomin, R., et al. 1994. The genetic basis of complex human behaviors. Ridley, M. 2000. Genome. New York: Perennial.

55

Science 264:1733.

et al. 2002. A neural basis for social cooperation. Neuron 35:395. Rilling, J.K., Robins, R. W. 2005. The nature of personality: Genes, culture, and national character. Science 310:62. takes flight. Science 297:204. Robinson, G. 2002. Sociogenomics in America. 2nd ed. New York: Vintage. Rossiter, C. 1962. Conservatism Rowe, D. C, et al. 1998. The relation of the dopamine transporter gene izing disorders in children. Behavior Genetics 28:215. (DAT1) to symptoms of internal

1986. Gene-culture Rushton, J. P., C. H. Littlefield, and C. J. Lumsden. behavior: Human altruism and mate choice. Proceedings of the National Sanfey, A. G, et al. 2003. The neural basis of economic decision-making 300:1755.

coevolution of complex social Academy of Sciences 83:7340. in the ultimate game. Science

Segal, J.A., and H. J. Spaeth. University Press.

Schubert, G. 1965. The judicial mind. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. Schwartz, C. E., et al. 2003. Inhibited and uninhibited infants "grown up": Adult amygdalar novelty. Science 300:1952. 1993. The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model. Cambridge:

response Cambridge

to

a gene enriched Shumyatsky, G P., et al. 2005. Stathmin, fear. Cell 123:697.

in the amygdala, controls both learned and innate

-.

Singer, T., et al. 2004. Brain responses to the acquired moral status of faces. Neuron 41:653. 2006. Empathetic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others. Nature 439:466. W, et al. 2003. Association of a genetic marker at the corticotropin-releasing Smoller, J. with behavioral inhibition. Biological Psychiatry 54:1376. Sokolowski, M. B. 2002. Social eating for stress. Nature 419:893. hormone locus

et al. 1988. in twins reared apart and Tellegen, A., Personality similarity together. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54:1031. Tetlock, P. E. 1983. Cognitive style and political ideology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45:118. -. 1984. Cognitive style and political belief systems in the British House of Commons. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46:365. Whitfield, C. W, et al. 2003. Gene expression profiles in the brain predict behavior in individual honey bees. Science 302:296. Wilson, E. O. 1999. Consilience. Zhang, X., et al. 2005. Loss-of-function depression. Neuron 45:11. New York: Vintage. mutation in tryptophan hydroxylase-2 identified in unipolar major