(115) Most scientists dismiss the notions that one "crime gene" causes all antisocial behavior and that genes are completely deterministic of an individual's behavior.
(116.) See Kaye, supra note 113, at 269 ("That genes always act in the context of the environment is not the only reason that 'crime gene' talk is misleading."); see also Bernet, supra note 115, at 1363 ("No research has yet to isolate a specific 'crime gene' and probably none ever will.").
Featuring partner in crime Gene
Wilder, they show why Pryor was so loved.
(8) He addresses the concern that DNA databanks serve as a limitless repository for future research and that the samples used in the databanks could be used for research into a "crime gene
." Kaye provides a compelling explanation of why, given the nature of the samples used in DNA databanks and the difficulties and limitations of behavioral genetics studies, the search for a "crime gene
" is unlikely by scientists.
For several years supporters of these biological explanations of criminal behavior received support from "twin studies" that purported to "prove" that there was a "crime gene
" and that the environment was only indirectly responsible for such behavior by "triggering" behaviors just "waiting to happen." Despite research debunking such theories, the supporters continued to advance their argument.
Nearly all criminologists, psychologists, sociologists, and other investigators -- including those who organized the ill-fated meeting on the genetics of criminal behavior -- routinely reject the idea of a "crime gene
" or "born criminals?At the same time, they note that some partially inherited traits, such as intelligence and temperament, influence the likelihood that individuals will participate in criminal acts.
"There is no "crime gene
,'' the authors write, "but some traits that are to a degree heritable, such as intelligence and temperament, affect to some extent the likelihood that individuals will engage in criminal activities.'
Even if [a law enforcement agency] decides they're only going to use it for identification purposes, there's no restriction on their turning it over to somebody else who will use it to look for a crime gene....
It concludes that talk of a "crime gene" is scientifically naive and that the databases themselves would be of little or no value in behavioral genetics research.
Is it true that geneticists, psychiatrists, or other biomedical researchers are itching to get their hands on the government's information in order to discover a "crime gene"?
Technically speaking, the phrase "crime gene" is an oxymoron.
(4.) Benjamin Keehn, Strands of Justice: Do DNA Databanks Infringe on Defendants' Rights?, PBS NEWSHOUR ONLINE FORUM, July 17, 1998, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/july98/dna_databanks03.html ("The hunt is already on for the 'crime gene' ...