[credit provider=”The Today Show” url=”http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50234741#50234741″]
In a rare and now controversial investigation, scientists have been asked by Connecticut’s medical examiner to study Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza’s DNA — but the DNA community doesn’t think that’s such a good idea. Though details on the research are scant, University of Connecticut geneticists will apparently be looking for biological clues that might explain Lanza’s extreme violent behaviour.The New York Times’s Gina Kolata reports that this undertaking is thought to be the first time scientists have studied the genome of a mass killer. Baylor College of Medicine’s genetics professor Arthur Beaudet endorses the research, saying, “By studying genetic abnormalities we can learn more about conditions better and who is at risk.”
But the ethical implications of singling out genetic mutations to explain violent behaviour trouble many other scientists, who worry that such research might be held against innocent people who happen to share some of Lanza’s genetic features.
Harvard Medical School’s Dr. Harold Bursztajn told ABC News that he’s not sure what the U. Conn geneticists will “even be looking for at this point,” considering how thorny and full of false positives the link between genetic markers and violence is.
So far, the strongest evidence that genetics play a role in violent behaviour comes out of research on MAOA, a gene that produces a substance called monoamine oxidase. Studies from the early ’90s showed that abused children with certain variations of this gene had problems regulating their aggressive impulses. But University of Pennsylvania criminologist Adrian Raine questions how crucial MAOA is in determining who actually becomes violent. University of California San Francisco geneticist Robert Nussbaum also worries about the potential for genetic discrimination:
It’s a shot in the dark that’s unlikely to show anything. If they find something associated with autism, I’m afraid that it might have the effect of stigmatizing autistic people. I can see a whole morass coming out of this.
Here are some of the many other geneticists who don’t think meaningful conclusions can be drawn from such studies, fearing what the general public would make out of such information:
Many journalists who cover genetic research for a living also remain sceptical: