Do not go gene-tly

Like many of the world's great breakthroughs, the discovery of genesSections of DNA strands that act as a kind of instruction manual for a human being. There is still a great deal we do not understand about how they work. was at first ignored by the scientific community. When Gregor MendelA scientist and monk who devoted much of his life to experiments on pea plants, showing that it was possible to predict what characteristics they would have based on their parents' characteristics, and that some characteristics were dominant over others. proved in 1866 that hereditary traits were predictable across generations, his work was picked up in only a few local news articles.

Today, Mendel is recognised as the father of one of the most exciting frontiers in modern science. But the science of genetics has also become a defining battle line between left and rightIn the 1960s, African American students fought for the right to attend the same schools and colleges as white students. In the UK, disability activists have campaigned to make schools accessible to everyone.. Many right-wingers argue that human beings are naturally unequal because of their genes, while left-wingers deny that genes encode our destiny.

Now one scientist thinks that some on both sides are still choosing to ignore genetics, just as they did in 1866.

Kathryn Paige Harden is one of the most influential geneticists of her generation, an academic superstar who is often stopped for selfies by admiring students. But a few years ago, she found that when she argued that genes determine how people will turn out, left-wingers accused her of sleepwalking into eugenicsThe idea that human beings should be improved through genetic engineering. In the past, eugenics has generally involved killing people who are deemed "inferior".. 

In her new book, The Genetic Lottery, she is on a crusade to show how genetics can be a force for social justice.

In the 1960s, most scientists believed that differences between human beings were entirely a product of their environmentThe natural world.. Some argued that differences between human beings were genetically determined, but their conclusions were often explicitly racist.

This culminated in 1994 with the publication of The Bell CurveA 1994 book by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray that was widely condemned for its racist conclusions about hereditary intelligence., which argued that intelligence is entirely determined by genes. Although the book was heavily criticised by scientists for its racist ideas, some right-wingers seized the chance to use the idea of an unchangeable genetic destiny to present inequalities between human beings as inevitable.

This served to discredit genetics in the eyes of left-wingers, who preferred to stick to the idea that our environment determines our intelligence and other attributes.

But the science of genetics continued to advance. And scientists came to discover that this old binary, between an environment in which everything can be changed and a genetic profile which makes us unchangeable, is wrong.

That is where Harden comes in. She argues that genetics does not have to be right-wing. For example, it has been used to show that conditions like autismA condition characterised by difficulty in social interaction and communication. According to the World Health Organisation, 1 in 160 children has an autism disorder., schizophrenia and depression are part of a person's nature, and not, as was previously believed, the consequence of poor life choices or bad parenting.

Moreover, character traits cannot be traced back to one single gene. Instead, they come about from the complex interplay of different genes, which can throw up unpredictable results.

She hopes that her work will explode myths about genetics on both left and right. Right-wingers will no longer be able to claim that unequal outcomes are the consequence of hard work if a person's income can be shown to have a genetic origin. And left-wingers will have to accept that inequality cannot be abolished with social engineering.

Are genes irrelevant?

Yes, say some. Even if we accept that genes influence who we become as people, this says nothing about social outcomes. The important question is not whether or not some people are innately cleverer than others, but why those who are cleverer should be paid more and have more comfortable lives than others.

Others say no. The genetics genie is out of the bottle: studies have found a genetic origin to everything from educational attainment to tea consumption. There is a genetics revolution taking place and both left and right need to readjust to the new reality, or risk being left behind.