Kiwi researchers ID self-mutilation gene

Kiwi researchers have identified a gene markedly increasing a teenager's risk of self-mutilation.


A Christchurch School of Medicine study has discovered those who have the gene are four times more likely to mutilate or cut themselves than those who do not have it.

Researcher professor Peter Joyce said the gene appeared to intensify the "numb" state that self-mutilators try to escape from by inflicting pain and cutting themselves.

About 40% of the population has the gene, which researchers have now identified as one of three main predictors of self-mutilation, along with borderline personality disorder and a history of childhood sexual abuse.

Joyce said the study, yet to be published, found that of the young people who did not carry the gene and who had not been sexually abused, only 5% self-mutilated.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,2916393a11,00.html

Every other day, some "gee whiz" story is published about "genes for" this or that behavior. Most of them are subsequently debunked and/or abandoned. There isn't "a gene for" any complex behavior.

Fact is, there are powerful institutional and ideological forces that encourage people to accept biological explanations for nearly everything.

and your statement is as ignorant as those who think everything is controlled by single genes. The fact is that everything we are is a combination of genetics and environment.

But there's been a tendency over the last couple of decades to overstate the role of biology. Why?

For one, it's easy. It's easier to come up with simplistic biological explanations than to examine the complex social causes of any given ill. It also takes responsibility away from people afflicted with these supposed biological defects.

Another reason is that there's a long tradition of reductionism in science, especially in the United States. Students are still largely taught to think in reductionist terms. But in the real world, things are frequently more than the sums of their parts.

Yet another reason is that biological explanations often serve to protect the status quo. The Bell Curve is an obvious example. But there are also times when (mostly white, well-off, and male) scientists project their biases onto their research, yielding results that serve to justify the current social order.

And of course, biotech and pharmaceutical companies have a vested interest in promoting biological determinism.

This isn't about nature versus nurture; I agree that everything is a result of both. It's about specificity versus plasticity. And human behavior is a great deal more plastic than some would like to admit.

This is a joke.

I'm as much genetically inclined to go out and eat plastic spoons because they taste like chicken. :eyes:

I was sexually abused - 3 times over the first 15 years of my life (I'm 32). (edit - clarification: By 3 different people, 2 of which were multiple times...) I was humiliated by peers. Beaten up. Taunted. You name it. THAT was why I developed personality problems and even went through a mutilation streak (the scars on my skin are also my proof I'd done this...)

This idea that it's a gene is utter cowpie.

Gee, I could do a survey of people who like chocolate and tie that to being sexually molested too. Hey Mr. Government Dude, would you give me some money? I really am a subsidiary of Halliburton so I know you can! :eyes: