Epigenetics Research, “The Culture of Poverty,” and “The Bell Curve” (Khan)

The New York Times recently ran an article (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/18/us/18poverty.html) on how scholars are rediscovering the “culture of poverty,” the idea that persistent poverty among certain demographic groups stem not from longstanding economic disadvantages or structural discrimination, but rather from a culture that predisposes its members to economic failure. One does not have to read the commentary following this article to recognize that this is a hot-button issue in academia and why many scholars are ambivalent about this topic. On the one hand, it is easy to see how this theory can be manipulated into “blaming the poor” for their situation and justifying social policies that neglect investment of government resources (e.g., education, housing, healthcare, welfare, etc) in poorer communities since it is their culture, not their socio-economic context that needs to change. On the other hand, if researchers have identified certain cultural practices (e.g., not valuing education) that are maladaptive and inimical to the interest of any particular group, one can understand how they would not want political sensitivities to impede efforts and policies that may improve the socio-economic conditions of any particular demographic.

So what does the “culture of poverty” have to do with epigenetics? I'll get to that. First, a brief background on epigenetics—it is the field of inquiry that looks at inherited changes in gene expressions that are caused by mechanisms other than changes in the DNA code (genetics). So for instance, researchers have identified how a variety of environmental exposures, from chemical exposures to being a holocaust survivor can imprint DNA with epigenetic markers that can modulate gene expression like a light dimmer switch. This in itself may not seem extraordinary as nature (genetics) and nurture (environment) have long been understood to affect one's individual phenotype (physical expression of underlying genetic traits). However, what is novel about recent understanding of epigenetics marks is that they are “sticky” and can last for several generations. The implication of this is that some harmful exposures (like toxins or being a victim of violent oppression) which your grandparents experienced, might still be affecting you on an epigenetic level even if you never experienced such exposures.

Last year, when I gave a talk to a legal academic audience on the implications of epigenetics research, I referenced studies that demonstrated that maternal nutrition could have a dramatic impact on childhood physical and neural development (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/88/3/789) including a positive correlation with higher maternal fish intake and higher child IQ scores (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2807%2960277-3/abstract). As an aside, I mentioned that such studies effectively debunk the notorious “The Bell Curve” theory of Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein that differential IQ scores among demographic groups are explicitly attributable to genetics (and that implicitly nothing can be done about the so-called “achievement gap” because genetics are largely immutable). If IQ scores can be altered by maternal nutrition (among other environmental variables), this renders untenable Murray and Herrnstein's contention that IQ scores are primarily based on one's genetic endowment.

While I basked in the glow of seemingly debunking a particular eugenics argument that I personally found distasteful, one of my astute audience members asked whether the argument I was making could justify discrimination based on one's impoverished upbringing—because they were much more likely to be born in the context of poor maternal nutrition, substandard prenatal care—and these “epigenetic” factors would likely deleteriously affect their physical and mental development. In other words, was I tearing down eugenics and replacing it with “euepigenics” (somebody please come up with a better word to describe this concept or alert me if one already exists—discrimination based on one's epigenome)? My response was that of course, people with ill-intent could interpret some epigenetic research findings as a “rational basis” to discriminate against groups or individuals that have a certain epigenetic profile. However, on the flip side, one could view the relative malleability of the epigenome, in contrast to the genome, as an opportunity to enact policies that could have a dramatic positive impact on one's capabilities. For example, a policy to direct more resources for maternal nutrition and prenatal care could hopefully ensure improved physical and mental development for subsequent children and the benefits would last a lifetime if not several generations.

This brings me back to the debate over the “culture of poverty.” To the questioner mentioned above, I replied that just as with genetics research, we need to be aware of the ethical implications of epigenetic research, and be wary of scientific findings being twisted to rationalize clearly unjust laws and policies (e.g., see Buck v. Bell, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=274&invol=200 ). To impede scientific inquiry because it might be misinterpreted or misused is not the correct path in my opinion. I think concerns regarding the misuse of epigenetics research--as with genetics research or research on the social aspects of poverty--should be recognized and acknowledged, but that we should not be afraid of otherwise valid academic research even if it has the potential to raise uncomfortable findings. For, therein these findings lies the potential to improve the human condition. Thus, therein these findings lies hope.

TypePad Conversations » Answer this question!

Comments

[Aileen Kennedy]

What a fascinating area of legal ethics. From a feminist perspective, the concept of epigenetics has striking implications for challenging the post-enlightenment construction of a mind/body duality. Thank you for this post, it is inspiring me to think deeply about the implications of epigenetics.