Heritability studies: Methodological flaws, invalidated dogmas, and changing paradigms

Callie H. Burt

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose - Heritability studies attempt to estimate the contribution of genes (vs. environments) to variation in phenotypes (or outcomes of interest) in a given population at a given time. This chapter scrutinizes heritability studies of adverse health phenotypes, emphasizing flaws that have become more glaring in light of recent advances in the life sciences and manifest most visibly in epigenetics. Methodology/approach - Drawing on a diverse body of research and critical scholarship, this chapter examines the veracity of methodological and conceptual assumptions of heritability studies. Findings - The chapter argues that heritability studies are futile for two reasons: (1) heritability studies suffer from serious methodological flaws with the overall effect of making estimates inaccurate and likely biased toward inflated heritability, and, more importantly (2) the conceptual (biological) model on which heritability studies depend- That of identifiably separate effects of genes versus the environment on phenotype variance - is unsound. As discussed, contemporary bioscientific work indicates that genes and environments are enmeshed in a complex (bidirectional, interactional), dynamic relationship that defies any attempt to demarcate separate contributions to phenotype variance. Thus, heritability studies attempt the biologically impossible. The emerging research on the importance of microbiota is also discussed, including how the commensal relationship between microbial and human cells further stymies heritability studies. Originality/value - Understandably, few sociologists have the time or interest to be informed about the methodological and theoretical underpinnings of heritability studies or to keep pace with the incredible advances in genetics and epigenetics over the last several years. The present chapter aims to provide interested scholars with information about heritability and heritability estimates of adverse health outcomes in light of recent advances in the biosciences.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)3-44
Number of pages42
JournalAdvances in Medical Sociology
Volume16
DOIs
StatePublished - 2015

Fingerprint

methodological studies
dogma
paradigm
Phenotype
Epigenomics
life sciences
Genes
health
sociologist
Biological Models
Biological Science Disciplines
Microbiota
Health
Research
present
methodology
Values
Population
time

Keywords

  • Epigenetics
  • Heritability study
  • Microbiome
  • Plasticity
  • Postgenomics
  • Twin study

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Health(social science)

Cite this

Heritability studies : Methodological flaws, invalidated dogmas, and changing paradigms. / Burt, Callie H.

In: Advances in Medical Sociology, Vol. 16, 2015, p. 3-44.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{d6b3600ff821496dad51b1232d18b84d,
title = "Heritability studies: Methodological flaws, invalidated dogmas, and changing paradigms",
abstract = "Purpose - Heritability studies attempt to estimate the contribution of genes (vs. environments) to variation in phenotypes (or outcomes of interest) in a given population at a given time. This chapter scrutinizes heritability studies of adverse health phenotypes, emphasizing flaws that have become more glaring in light of recent advances in the life sciences and manifest most visibly in epigenetics. Methodology/approach - Drawing on a diverse body of research and critical scholarship, this chapter examines the veracity of methodological and conceptual assumptions of heritability studies. Findings - The chapter argues that heritability studies are futile for two reasons: (1) heritability studies suffer from serious methodological flaws with the overall effect of making estimates inaccurate and likely biased toward inflated heritability, and, more importantly (2) the conceptual (biological) model on which heritability studies depend- That of identifiably separate effects of genes versus the environment on phenotype variance - is unsound. As discussed, contemporary bioscientific work indicates that genes and environments are enmeshed in a complex (bidirectional, interactional), dynamic relationship that defies any attempt to demarcate separate contributions to phenotype variance. Thus, heritability studies attempt the biologically impossible. The emerging research on the importance of microbiota is also discussed, including how the commensal relationship between microbial and human cells further stymies heritability studies. Originality/value - Understandably, few sociologists have the time or interest to be informed about the methodological and theoretical underpinnings of heritability studies or to keep pace with the incredible advances in genetics and epigenetics over the last several years. The present chapter aims to provide interested scholars with information about heritability and heritability estimates of adverse health outcomes in light of recent advances in the biosciences.",
keywords = "Epigenetics, Heritability study, Microbiome, Plasticity, Postgenomics, Twin study",
author = "Burt, {Callie H.}",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.1108/S1057-629020150000016002",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "16",
pages = "3--44",
journal = "Advances in Medical Sociology",
issn = "1057-6290",
publisher = "JAI Press",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Heritability studies

T2 - Methodological flaws, invalidated dogmas, and changing paradigms

AU - Burt, Callie H.

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - Purpose - Heritability studies attempt to estimate the contribution of genes (vs. environments) to variation in phenotypes (or outcomes of interest) in a given population at a given time. This chapter scrutinizes heritability studies of adverse health phenotypes, emphasizing flaws that have become more glaring in light of recent advances in the life sciences and manifest most visibly in epigenetics. Methodology/approach - Drawing on a diverse body of research and critical scholarship, this chapter examines the veracity of methodological and conceptual assumptions of heritability studies. Findings - The chapter argues that heritability studies are futile for two reasons: (1) heritability studies suffer from serious methodological flaws with the overall effect of making estimates inaccurate and likely biased toward inflated heritability, and, more importantly (2) the conceptual (biological) model on which heritability studies depend- That of identifiably separate effects of genes versus the environment on phenotype variance - is unsound. As discussed, contemporary bioscientific work indicates that genes and environments are enmeshed in a complex (bidirectional, interactional), dynamic relationship that defies any attempt to demarcate separate contributions to phenotype variance. Thus, heritability studies attempt the biologically impossible. The emerging research on the importance of microbiota is also discussed, including how the commensal relationship between microbial and human cells further stymies heritability studies. Originality/value - Understandably, few sociologists have the time or interest to be informed about the methodological and theoretical underpinnings of heritability studies or to keep pace with the incredible advances in genetics and epigenetics over the last several years. The present chapter aims to provide interested scholars with information about heritability and heritability estimates of adverse health outcomes in light of recent advances in the biosciences.

AB - Purpose - Heritability studies attempt to estimate the contribution of genes (vs. environments) to variation in phenotypes (or outcomes of interest) in a given population at a given time. This chapter scrutinizes heritability studies of adverse health phenotypes, emphasizing flaws that have become more glaring in light of recent advances in the life sciences and manifest most visibly in epigenetics. Methodology/approach - Drawing on a diverse body of research and critical scholarship, this chapter examines the veracity of methodological and conceptual assumptions of heritability studies. Findings - The chapter argues that heritability studies are futile for two reasons: (1) heritability studies suffer from serious methodological flaws with the overall effect of making estimates inaccurate and likely biased toward inflated heritability, and, more importantly (2) the conceptual (biological) model on which heritability studies depend- That of identifiably separate effects of genes versus the environment on phenotype variance - is unsound. As discussed, contemporary bioscientific work indicates that genes and environments are enmeshed in a complex (bidirectional, interactional), dynamic relationship that defies any attempt to demarcate separate contributions to phenotype variance. Thus, heritability studies attempt the biologically impossible. The emerging research on the importance of microbiota is also discussed, including how the commensal relationship between microbial and human cells further stymies heritability studies. Originality/value - Understandably, few sociologists have the time or interest to be informed about the methodological and theoretical underpinnings of heritability studies or to keep pace with the incredible advances in genetics and epigenetics over the last several years. The present chapter aims to provide interested scholars with information about heritability and heritability estimates of adverse health outcomes in light of recent advances in the biosciences.

KW - Epigenetics

KW - Heritability study

KW - Microbiome

KW - Plasticity

KW - Postgenomics

KW - Twin study

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84937549312&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84937549312&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1108/S1057-629020150000016002

DO - 10.1108/S1057-629020150000016002

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84937549312

VL - 16

SP - 3

EP - 44

JO - Advances in Medical Sociology

JF - Advances in Medical Sociology

SN - 1057-6290

ER -