Science, Science and Technology

It’s Not My Fault – My Genes Made Me Do It

One of the more profound questions we ask as we learn more about the effects genetics can have on behaviour, is can we actually control our actions? Did I have a choice in writing this blog post, or did the genes I possess lead me to getting on this train, getting bored easily, and starting to write? Was I always going to end up here? And when I do something lazy, or unkind, did I truly choose to do that, or was it always going to happen?

While our genetics (combined with our environmental influences) offer explanations for a large amount of variation in humans, the increasing use of our genetic make-up as a way of passing the blame for our behaviour is actually quite worrying. On a small scale, it’s quite nice to say “well, nature made me this way”. I like to use my biologically programmed body clock as an excuse for sleeping in late, and trying to claim that I’m snappy and impatient because “it’s in my genes” would be tempting (who knows if that would even be possible). Criminal behaviour, however, is a whole other story. We can’t really use our genetics as an excuse for murder… can we?

With advancements in DNA profiling technology come more questions about how we can use this information.
Are our lives mapped out along the double helix of our DNA?

On the X chromosome lies a gene we call “MAOA”, which codes for an enzyme which is involved in regulating the metabolism of neurotransmitters, including dopamine and serotonin. The MAOA gene contains a repeat sequence, which in most people repeats four times. However, men (note: these results were only found in men, not women) who possess three repeats of this sequence, in addition to certain psychosocial factors, are more likely to exhibit criminal behaviour than those with four repeats. What this means is that men who possess the MAOA gene with three copies of the repeats of the sequence, rather than four are more likely to display violent behaviour, but only when coupled with a violent upbringing. Regardless of whether their upbringing is violent or not, men with four repeats show no change in the number of instances of violent behaviour. 5% of the population have three repeats of the sequence instead of four, yet not all of those possessing this “violent” variation of the gene are violent.  As per usual however, upon finding out, the headline in The Daily Mail read “Are criminals born with a MURDER GENE?” (Yes, they capitalised the words “murder gene” just like that.) The link between this gene and violent behaviour is strong, but only when accompanied by environmental factors; a study found that of those with the combination of a violent upbringing, and the shorter MAOA sequence,  85% developed antisocial behaviour.

Can “my genes made me do it” really stand up in court? And should it?

The existence of this genetic variant has actually been used in court cases. In an Italian case, Abdelmalek Bayout stabbed a man to death, and his sentence was cut by one year after evidence of his possession of the shorter MAOA gene was given. In the minds of some people, possessing a gene which causes them to have a predisposition to violent behaviour makes them less accountable for their actions, as if they had no choice; their genes had forced them to hurt someone. Perhaps possessing this gene in combination with the environmental factor of maltreatment in childhood makes it harder for some men to refrain from violence, but it is still difficult to see how this prevents them from being held responsible when they act on these impulses. The information on this gene could be useful, if not to weasel out of longer sentences, to provide some form of help to men who possess the gene and have had a violent upbringing – maybe there are ways of countering the effects of these, and stopping them from acting on violent impulses, preventing the court cases from occurring in the first place.

But this whole discussion raises a more interesting question (which in itself doesn’t quite make sense): where do our genes stop and we begin? If we look introspectively at what makes us ourselves, we are a combination of our genetics and our environment. Both of these influences combine together in all sorts of ways, each one even being able to influence the other: our environment can alter the way our genes are expressed and our genes can alter the environments we place ourselves in. If this is so, are our genes not “us”? Is saying “my genes did it” really any different from saying “I did it”? Of course, there is sense in the fact that we can’t control our genes: they can make us ill, and make us different from each other, and a lot of that, we don’t have control over, though I believe we can control our actions, and some aspects of our environment. We don’t have a choice in our genetics, so there’s no need to blame ourselves for all those nigggly little things about our looks or personality that we don’t  like. But can we really say that because we were influenced by our genes, it’s not our fault?


Crime Genes – The Biologist

Two Genes Linked With Violent Crime – BBC News

Click to access Caspi1.pdf

3 thoughts on “It’s Not My Fault – My Genes Made Me Do It”

  1. Determinism and Responsibility

    Determinism is nothing more than the belief in cause and effect. Every change, every event, every action, every phenomenon in the real world can, at least in theory, be accounted for in terms of one or more specific causes that made it happen. And each of these specific causes is itself a change, event, action, or phenomena in the real world, with its own specific causes. These chains of causes reach back to the beginning of time and will reach forward to its end.

    Everything that happens is, in theory, inevitable. This was never a big deal until some dumb philosopher suggested that, if everything is inevitable, then (1) everything is beyond our control, and, (2) we cannot be held responsible for anything we do.

    Both assumptions are false.

    The first assumption is false because, although many things are beyond our control, we are actually the relevant causes of a great deal of what happens in this world. And these events are only inevitable because of choices we deliberately made.

    Are our choices also inevitable? Of course. When we make a deliberate choice, we consider alternatives, we estimate the outcomes of one option over another, and then we choose what we think or feel would be best. Given sufficient knowledge of the decider and the situation, even the amateur could predict the outcome with reasonable reliability. But the decider himself will not know for sure until he has actually made the decision. Knowledge that the decision is theoretically inevitable and predictable is completely useless to the decider.

    The second assumption is false because it misrepresents the meaning of “holding responsible”. In all practical matters, to “hold” someone or something “responsible” actually means to identify who or what needs to be corrected.

    Suppose a person decides that he can “hold his liquor” and drive safely home after a party. He may do this successfully many times. But then his inebriation causes him to lose attention and hit a pedestrian crossing the street.

    His conscious decision to drink and drive caused a fatal accident. And it also was the relevant cause of his arrest, conviction, and punishment.

    He cannot claim exemption from punishment due to the “inevitability” of his choice to drink and drive. There is nothing we can do to rewrite the offender’s personal history. The practical problem at this point is how we might influence his future behavior. Therefore, the person as he is now is the “point of correction” rather than his past, and it is the person as he is now that is “held responsible” for the pedestrian’s death.

    So, determinism does nothing to release anyone from being held responsible for their choices. We may, though, by studying those early influences, design educational programs to reduce the likelihood that others will make the same bad choice.

    There is nothing in determinism that diminishes personal responsibility or the impact of the decisions we make of our own free will. And free will itself exists quite comfortably within the context of a deterministic universe.

    (One more thing, to the degree that genetic predisposition increases the chances of repeated offenses, the correction would logically be extended rather than reduced.)


    1. Thank you so much for your reply. I completely agree with what you said about events being determined by the choices we have made, and I think that even though we may inevitably make one decision, other options were still open to us right until the point of decision.

      What you said about determinism not releasing someone from responsibility is also extremely interesting, especially if you think in the context of genetics: I think you’re right; in my mind, genetic predisposition surely would increase the chance of repeat offences and hence give greater need for counselling/correction. This is one of the reasons I find the idea of getting a reduced sentence for a crime, due to genetics so ridiculous.

      I really enjoyed reading this more philosophical perspective on the topic; it really got me thinking!

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s