ABOUT | LATEST | WHEAT | CHAFF | 
Latest from the Neuro-Journalism Mill
Posted: 2008-09-05CHAFF
The Biology of Ideology
By Robert Lee Hotz
The Wall Street Journal, 2008-09-04
Link to article
Today’s posting hits a home run when it comes to the criteria for Chaff – particularly when it comes to the criteria of reporting on findings of dubious value. We know the author can always invoke the journalistic defense of “balance” -- stringing together the advocates and the naysayers. But it would be nice if every now and then the urge to hook scientific findings to current events was resisted.
The neurocurmudgeons are so weary of pointing out the flaws of simplistically linking biological findings to behavior – particularly when the “behavior” is as poorly defined as political ideology. We thought we might resist our own urges. But, our anterior cingulate wouldn’t let us.
Despite the promise of the catchy headline and the graphic – the 5 September WSJ Science Journal is NOT about the biology of ideology. It is certainly not about the genetics of political behavior. It is true, as the article quotes, “…in a broad sense, biology shapes all of behavior.” In this case in “broad as the side of a barn” sense. Thankfully the highlighted studies mainly draw on individuals living in predominantly two-party systems, like the US and the UK– the genetics of Italian political ideology might get as complicated as – well, gee- tumor biology (see below).
We might have been more interested if the profiled studies had found intriguing differences in the liberal versus conservative gene for succinate dehydrogenase. Then we could speculate that liberals are just a tad more energetic than conservatives. What fun if the difference was in the gene for myosin! This might have hinted at an advantage for one group over another when it comes to using the voting booth touch screen. But sadly – it turns out the genes are involved in regulating those usual behavioral suspects, yep, serotonin and dopamine. The NCs are now very concerned about what happens if one eats a turkey sandwich the evening prior to Election Day? Could environmental influences override our genetic propensities? Could the Butterball advertising jeopardize the entire democratic process? Just whose idea was it to put Election Day so close to Thanksgiving anyway?!
The NC’s were surprised to learn that the dopamine link may have something to do with “sensitizing us to new experiences, and a tilt toward liberal political ideology.” Sad to think that a biological quirk, no one’s fault really, dooms conservatives – insensitive to new experiences- to the sorry fate of living the same way each and every day, over and over – like the poor Bill Murray character in Groundhog Day. Pick your parents carefully!
The NCs were oddly relieved, reading a news piece reporting on several papers reporting about cancer genetics on the same page as The Biology of Ideology, that while the genetics of ideology is simple, the genetics of cancer is complicated. Three genes may determine whether and how you vote. Malignant cells have tens of mutations in lots of pathways. Cancer is spatially and temporally a multiscale, complex problem. Helps to explain why developing effective treatments for cancer is so challenging. Thankfully, understanding the political choices made by millions of individuals – that’s easy.
The Biology of Ideology
By Robert Lee Hotz, The Wall Street Journal, 2008-09-04
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122047003725696177.html
