The Power of Knowing

Photo By  ninopnatividad

In the United States alone, there are likely 3 million psychopaths that walk among us at any given time, according to Dr. Robert Hare, creator of the famous psychopathy diagnostic tool, the PCL-R (Nunez et al., 2005). Doctor Leonard Mateo of the University of Minnesota conducted a study observing 700 children doing normal daily activities, reporting that 684 of them showed behavior related to sociopathy. Approximately 3% of all adult males have a sociopathic disorder called antisocial personality disorder. Headscratchers indeed, especially the case involving the sociopathic children. Surely, environmental factors cannot be the first or only reason for these statistics, nor should it be the answer we willingly accept without further evidence. These numbers strongly suggest an underlying biological problem: specifically, a problem within one’s genes. Genes are biological units which contain all instructions for all cells in every living organism. Since they make up who we are, what we are, and persist as the root cause of many physical and psychological ailments, analyzing them can reveal genetic markers linked to violent behavior. Though people fear that genetic analysis can lead to stigmatization of innocent people (according to Nature), in reality, identifying these genetic factors and analyzing them in tandem with sociological factors will help us to better understand violence and its potential criminal result.

Photo By  hongiiv

Violent events, such as the recent Adam Lanza shooting, bring anger, bitter sadness and a public outcry for answers. Why, on December 14, 2012, did twenty year old Adam Lanza shoot twenty children and six educators at the Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut? And worse, why have many blazed the path before him, including the mass shooter at a theater in Colorado this past July, the mass shooter of Virginia Tech, and who can forget Columbine. Scientists heed the call to answer these questions and they believe the answer may lie within our genes. A scientific journey to discovery, however, faces much resistance as tempers flare at the notion of analyzing Lanza’s genes. Instead of looking to science to potentially answer the disturbing questions of how and why someone can commit such acts, many belittle the idea of genetic analysis, while others peg it as downright invalid. Perhaps this response stems from an ignorance as to what genetic analysis can reveal and how those findings can be a step to a better understanding of the human psyche.

The idea of studying Adam Lanza’s genes is not a new phenomenon. In fact, genetic and neurological studies have been done extensively in attempts to understand criminal and violent behavior. Sam Harris, a neuroscientist, speaks about psychopathy in his book The Moral Landscape. Harris refers to a neuroimaging experiment comparing psychopathic criminals to non-psychopathic criminals. Scientists noted that the psychopathic brains exhibited reduced activity in the parts of the brain responsible for processing emotional stimuli. Meanwhile, in the reward region of the brain, neural connections associated with impulsiveness and antisocial behavior showed abnormally high activity (Harris, 2010). Harris further refers to the work of neuroscientist James Blair and his colleagues, who suggest that the absence of emotional learning stems from a genetic handicap in the parts of the brain responsible for processing emotion, specifically the amygdala and orbitofrontal cortex (Blair et al., 2005). Harris gives a fascinating and chilling laundry list of characteristics pertaining to psychopaths, stating, “A list of their most frequent characteristics reads like a personal ad from hell: they are said to be callous, manipulative, deceptive, impulsive, secretive, grandiose, thrill-seeking, sexually promiscuous, unfaithful, irresponsible, prone to both reactive and calculated aggression,and lacking in emotional depth” (Harris, 2010). The behavioral characteristics Harris lists result from the inability or reduced ability to process emotion, and faulty genes are front and center as the underlying biological cause. This does not imply that all psychopaths exhibit violent behavior, nor that they all become criminals. Many can live fruitful lives, but this does not mitigate the importance of studying the disorder, nor does it negate the role that genetics play.

The UTD News Center reports on another study conducted by Dr. J.C. Barnes, Assistant Professor of Criminology in the School of Economic, Political and Policy Sciences at UT Dallas, questioning whether genes serve as an indicator for a life of crime. The experiment collected data from 4,000 young individuals exhibiting antisocial behavior, then ranked each individual into one of three categories: life-course persistent offenders, adolescent-limited offenders, and abstainers. Determining the extent to which genetics and environmental factors affected each category, also referred to as a “pathway,” governed the premise of the experiment. The outcome of the study showed greater genetic implications than environmental implications in life-course persistent offenders, and also greater in this particular pathway than the other two. Dr. Barnes clarifies that the actual genes responsible for the behavior were not identified, but encourages the pursuit of their identification. He says that: “... there are likely to be hundreds, if not thousands, of genes that will incrementally increase your likelihood of being involved in a crime even if it only ratchets that probability by 1 percent. It still is a genetic effect. And it’s still important."

Even more supporting evidence for the validity of this kind of genetic analysis emerges from the findings presented in an episode of Nova ScienceNow called “Can Science Stop Crime.” Journalist David Progue investigates whether biology produces violent brains. His interviews begin with Criminologist Kevin Beaver who claims to have found a pattern after analyzing the genetic profiles and criminal records of more than 1,000 young men. He states, “There are some men that are, biologically and genetically speaking, much more likely to be predisposed to be violent and aggressive than others." Progue’s investigation further led him to interview other experts in the field, as well as a young man named Nikko, who underwent genetic analysis himself. Nikko admits to struggling with violence in high school, which later led him to join the Taliban. In conducting genetic analysis on Nikko, scientists discovered that he carries a variation of a gene called MAO-A, nicknamed the “warrior gene.” All people carry the normal version of this gene, which functions to regulate neurotransmitters, the chemicals responsible for our behavior and other traits. The less active version of the MAO-A gene results in excess neurotransmitters floating about in the brain. What does this mean? In studies, laboratory mice possessing the MAO-A gene became extremely aggressive. But Neuroscientist Joshua Bulkholtz analyzed the brain scans of people with the variant gene and found that their brains looked different. For starters, he found less grey matter in that region of the brain. Further, the amygdala (the part of the brain that detects threat) was highly active. The prefrontal cortex, responsible for emotional learning and acting on the amygdala, fails to subdue it, ergo its hyperactivity. Bulkholtz cautions, however, that the presence of this gene does not necessarily make a person violent and that “one factor alone is not enough to make someone violent."

The Nova ScienceNow interviews continued with Neuroscientist James Fallon, a descendant of a long line of murderers, including the famous ax murderer, Lizzie Borden. Intrigued about the warrior gene, he had himself and his family tested. He, his wife, his mother, and his son all carry this version of the gene. He then decided to compare his brain scan to those of criminals with abnormal emotional centers and shockingly discovered that his brain fell in line with theirs. But Fallon does not exhibit violent behavior. Fallon believes his positive upbringing suppressed any tendency for violent behavior. Nelly Alia-Klein, Brookhaven National Laboratory, corroborates this belief with PET (Positron Emission Tomography) scans she conducted on individuals with high levels of aggression who did not possess a warrior gene. Her findings allege that environments actually change the circuitry of the brain; that is, environmental causes took front and center in this case. The combined findings of both Klein and and Bulkholtz propose that genes and/or environmental factors can cause violent behavior, and that even if one has a genetic predisposition for violent behavior, it can be curtailed by a positive environment.

The various well-researched evidence presented throughout this article overwhelmingly supports genetic analysis for violent behavior. However, not everyone seems to agree, especially not the author of Nature whom I have referenced earlier. He believes that genetic analysis will reveal nothing about Adam Lanza’s genes and will only cause stigmatization (Nature, 493. 7431). Contrary to the author's claims, a plethora of evidence shows that genetic analysis can reveal pertinent biological information both alone and in environmental context. Evidence shows that we cannot narrow-mindedly rely solely on the idea of sociological causes as the culprits behind this kind of behavior, especially since time and again we have seen people raised in the same environment turn out quite differently. Further, the primal fear that stigmatization will be the end result is understandable, but unfounded. Notice that the scientists discussed here exercised nothing but caution to ensure that stigmatization does not happen; note the caveats and disclaimers they continually offered. Clearly the very idea of labeling people as dangerous and criminal simply because they carry a genetic anomaly screams absurdity and deceit. If anything, a thorough understanding of violent behavior in the context of biology and the environment should remove all ignorance and presuppositions of the matter and curtail stigmatization.

I conclude by saying that opposing genetic analysis on Adam Lanza’s genes, or anyone else's for that matter, is not only ignorant, but also demeans the validity and integrity of science, it denies the possibility of future explanations, and it stands in the way of a potential means of preventative measures. Science sets forth the goal to investigate, to report findings, and to improve the quality of life for living beings. A person with a known genetic predisposition for a particular disease may never acquire that disease, but knowing his or her susceptibility affords the action in taking precautions to lessen the chances of ever developing it. In essence, the largest of everyone’s concern should not be stigmatization or if we actually find something, but should be researching every possibility for how we can help the potential Adam Lanzas of the world to live a happy and functional life.

Works Cited

Blair, J., Mitchell, D. R., & Blair, K. The Psychopath: Emotion and the Brain. Massachusetts: Blackwell, 2005. Print.

Harris, Sam. The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values. New York: Free Press, 2010. Kindle file.

“No Easy Answer.” Nature International Weekly Journal of Science 493. 9 Jan. 2013. University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill Library. Web. 1 Feb. 2013. <http://www.nature.com.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/news/no-easy-answer-1.12157>.

Nunez, J. M., Casey, B. J., Egner, T., Hare, T., and Hirsch, J. (2005). “Intentional false responding shares neural substrates with response conflict and cognitive control.” Neuroimage, 25 (1), 267–277.