Controversy and the Development of Behavior Genetics AARON P Misbehaving Science Misbehaving Science Controversy and the Development of Behavior Genetics AARON PANOFSKY THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS CHICAGO AND LONDON aaron panofsky is assistant professor in the Department of Public Policy and Institute for Society and Genetics at the University of California, Los Angeles. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 60637 The University of Chicago Press. Ltd., London © 2014 by The University of Chicago All rights reserved. Published 2014. Printed in the United States of America 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 12345 ISBN-13: 978-0-226-05831-3 (cloth) isBN -13: 978-0-226-05845-0 (paper) isBN -13: 978-0-226-05859-7 (e-book) doi: io.72o8/chicago/978o226o58597.ooi.oooi Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Panofsky, Aaron, author. Misbehaving science : controversy and the development of behavior genetics / Aaron Panofsky. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. isbn 978-0-226-05831-3 (cloth : alk. paper) — isbn 978-0-226-05845-0 (pbk. : alk. paper) — isbn 978-0-226-05859-7 (e-book) 1. Behavior genetics—Social aspects. 2. Geneticists—Social aspects. 1. Title. QH457.P36 2014 576.5—dc23 2013034372 ® This paper meets the requirements of ansi/niso Z39.48-1992 (Permanence of Paper). Contents List of Illustrations vii Acknowledgments ix Introduction i CHAPTER I. Studying Misbehaving Science 18 CHAPTER 2. Founding the Field to Avoid Controversy 40 CHAPTER 3. The Young Field Disrupted: The Race and IQ Controversy 71 CHAPTER 4. Animals or Humans to Study Behavior? Conflict over the Shape of the Field 102 CHAPTER 5 . The Power of Reductionism: Valorizing Controversial Science 138 CHAPTER 6 . From Behavior Genetics to Genomics 165 c h a p t e r 7. Responsibility, Notoriety, and Geneticization 193 Conclusion: Misbehaving Science: Behavior Genetics and Beyond 224 Appendix 243 Notes 245 References 281 Index 315 Illustrations FIGURES 1.1 The archipelago of behavior genetics 33 3.1 Norms of reaction from Feldman and Lewontin (1975, 1166) 3.2 Norms of reaction from Gottesman (1968, 33) 92 6.1 NIH research grants in “behavioral genetics” (1974-2003) 6.2 NIH funding for “behavioral genetics” and other fields (1997-2004) 170 TABLES 2.1 Animal and human research cited in review articles 59 4.1 Coursework training of members of the BG A no 4.2 Ten institutions with the most BG A members 115 5.1 A selection of significantly heritable traits 148 6.1 Molecular genetic keywords in Behavior Genetics 185 7.1 Events promoting the public understanding of behavior genetics 201 Acknowledgments or this project, long in the making, I have gathered many debts. My Fthanks go out first to the many behavior geneticists, critics, and com­ mentators who spoke with me generously and openly about the held in both formal interviews and less formal conversations at conferences and workshops. Their words were the most important source of data for this study. I also appreciate invitations to participate in and observe several meetings of the “Crafting Tools for Public Conversation about Behav­ ioral Genetics” project of the Hastings Center. The Rockefeller Archive Center, the American Philosophical Society, and the online Profiles in Science collection at the National Library of Medicine provided archi­ val materials revealing important parts of behavior genetics’ history. Data about grants in behavior genetics came from the now defunct on­ line open government project, the Sunshine Project. For generous fund­ ing I must thank the National Science Foundation, the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences and the Institute for the History of the Production of Knowledge at New York University, the Robert Wood Johnson Foun­ dation, and the U C LA Faculty Career Development Fund. I have been blessed with a fantastic and dedicated set of mentors over the years. At N YU Richard Sennett, David Garland, Edward Lehman, Rayna Rapp, Craig Calhoun, and Troy Duster encouraged but also chal­ lenged me in ways that sharpened my thinking. Troy and Craig I thank especially for their confidence in me, their patience, and the many times they helped steer me back on course when I was heading off into the wilderness. This project was inspired by my conversations with Doro­ thy Nelkin long ago. She gave me a good push at the beginning but passed away long before the project was completed. I’m sure the book would have been better and been finished quicker had Dot been there X ACKNOWLEDGMENTS to keep helping me along; I'm still sad not to be able to share the results with her. I’ve had great colleagues to work with over the years. Thanks to Courtney Abrams, Michael Armato, Neal Caren, Amie Hess, Mon­ ika Krause, and Michael McQuarrie for their reads and critiques of the project early on. It has also been an honor to be a part of and present my work to the NYLON Culture Research Network led by Craig Cal­ houn and Richard Sennelt. When I was a fellow at UC Berkeley, I ben­ efited from conversations with sociology colleagues John Levi Martin, Michael Burawoy. Marion Fourcade, Dan Dohan, Anthony Chen, and Cybelle Fox as well as my political science, economics, and policy col­ leagues Rob Mickey, Naomi Murakawa, Michael Anderson, David Kirp, and John Elwood. At U C LA I've had the great fortune to be a part of two stimulating, supportive, and collegial units. I’d like to thank my colleagues in Pub­ lic Policy for their steady encouragement even though my work differs so much from theirs. Conversations with many of them, but in particu­ lar Mark Peterson, Andy Sabi. Mark Kleiman, and A 1 Carnesale, helped me think about my work in ways that could highlight its policy relevance. Colleagues at the Institute for Society and Genetics have been unwav­ ering in their faith and interest in the project even during long periods when it didn’t look like it was progressing much. The book would never have appeared in this form without the ideas, advice, and questions of Patrick Allard, Soraya DeChadaravian, Christopher Kelty, Hannah Lan- decker, Jessica Lynch-Alfaro, Ed McCabe, Linda McCabe, John Novem- bre, Christina Palmer, Abigail Saguy, David Schleifer, Norton Wise, and Stefan Timmermans. Conversations with Gil Eyal, John Dupre, Stefan Helmreich. David Moore, Kelly Moore, Alondra Nelson, Nicole Nelson, Diane Paul, Sarah Richardson, Nikolas Rose, and Karen-Sue Taussig were very helpful. I’ve also presented pieces of the project to audiences at NYU, the New School, the Hastings Center, London School of Eco­ nomics, U C LA . York University (Toronto), UC Berkeley, National Uni­ versity of Singapore, and various American Sociological Association and Society for Social Studies of Science conferences; I am most grateful for their attention, questions, and suggestions. There are a few colleagues whom I’d like to offer special thanks for shaping my ideas in conversations over the years and for reading drafts of my work. I was privileged to be part of an incredibly dedicated and productive writing group with Ruha Benjamin, Catherine Bliss, and ACKNOWLEDGMENTS XI Sara Shostak. They kept me moving forward and focused on the argu­ ments that matter during the hard slog of turning out the manuscript. It’s hard to overestimate the impact over the years of Michael McQuar- rie and Monika Krause on my ideas; they’re like extra lobes of my brain. And Hannah Landecker at a crucial moment basically saved the project: she helped me see and understand the deficits of the first draft and to re­ structure the entire narrative into its current historical and controversy- focused organization. And then she commented on drafts of most of the chapters, some more than once, thus ensuring I wouldn’t botch the job. It has been an honor and a pleasure to have my book published by the University of Chicago Press and to work with Doug Mitchell. Thanks to him for his bolstering encouragement, for selecting three anonymous re­ viewers who really appreciated what I was trying to do and offered sug­ gestions for improvement, and for assembling a great team for putting the book through production. Thanks to Dawn Hall for her adept copy­ editing and to Mireya Herrera for designing figure i .i , the map of behav­ ior genetics. Lastly I want to thank my family for all of their love and support. Thanks Mom, Dad, and Dave. But the greatest thanks, and love, go to my children Charlotte and Beatrice, and especially my wife Betsy Blanchard—my angel, muse, partner, and sometime overseer. No written acknowledgment can ever repay my debts to her, especially since they’re ever accumulating. Thankfully I get to work them off in person. Introduction n the mid-1990s a major controversy about the innateness of human Idifferences rocked the field of behavior genetics. In 1994 Harvard psy­ chologist Richard Herrnstein and policy analyst Charles Murray pub­ lished The Bell Curve, an 845-page tome about US economic inequality.1 Herrnstein and Murray drew on research in psychology and behavior ge­ netics to argue that US class structure can mostly be attributed to in­ equalities in individual intelligence as measured by IQ, that IQ is mostly an innate capacity of individuals under genetic control, and therefore differences in education and upbringing are not responsible for social in­ equalities. Their most provocative argument concerned race. Herrnstein and Murray claimed that genetic differences largely explain the lack of black and Latino success relative to white and Asian, though environ­ ment plays some role. The implication was that discrimination is mostly over, and that unequal social structure is genetically determined.