"Warrior Gene" Predicts Gang Membership
A new report in the journal Comprehensive Psychiatry by Florida State University biosocial criminologist Kevin Beaver finds that males who carry a specific "low activity" allele of a gene for monoamine oxidase a (MAOA) tend to be more violent and are more likely to join gangs. As the press release for the study reports:
Boys who carry a particular variation of the gene Monoamine oxidase A (MAOA), sometimes called the "warrior gene," are more likely not only to join gangs but also to be among the most violent members and to use weapons, according to a new study from The Florida State University that is the first to confirm an MAOA link specifically to gangs and guns…
"While gangs typically have been regarded as a sociological phenomenon, our investigation shows that variants of a specific MAOA gene, known as a 'low-activity 3-repeat allele,' play a significant role," said Beaver…
"Previous research has linked low-activity MAOA variants to a wide range of antisocial, even violent, behavior, but our study confirms that these variants can predict gang membership," he said. "Moreover, we found that variants of this gene could distinguish gang members who were markedly more likely to behave violently and use weapons from members who were less likely to do either."
The MAOA gene affects levels of neurotransmitters such as dopamine and serotonin that are related to mood and behavior, and those variants that are related to violence are hereditary. Some previous studies have found the "warrior gene" to be more prevalent in cultures that are typified by warfare and aggression.
But having this version of MAOA gene does not predestine a guy to a life of ultraviolence. I as reported a while back, research in New Zealand found a big contribution comes from the environment in which MAOA low activity carriers grow up. If such males are reared in good homes with no abuse, they are no more likely to commit crimes than males who have the higher activity (low crime) version of the MAOA gene.
But here's the question: Once genetic screening becomes widely available, should such young males be subject to greater scrutiny and perhaps be offered a drug treatment that reduces their risk of becoming violent?
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"Previous research has linked low-activity MAOA variants to a wide range of antisocial, even violent, behavior, but our study confirms that these variants can predict gang membership,"
What bunch of BS.
Do they include military and police in their definition of "gangs" in the study? I'd be interested to see how many boys in blue are genetic "warriors"...
Better to give them economics and finance training, and have them trade for hedge funds. Teach them Sweedo Ultracapitalist Pirates a thing or three!
Once genetic screening becomes widely available, should such young males be subject to greater scrutiny and perhaps be offered a drug treatment that reduces their risk of becoming violent?
the question presumes that medical marijuana will be decriminalized by then.
But here's the question: Once genetic screening becomes widely available, should such young males be subject to greater scrutiny and perhaps be offered a drug treatment that reduces their risk of becoming violent?
Screening, euthanasia, preventive detention - YES!
Eugenics is so cool, like always.
The answer to the question is: abort these fetuses... or we could fast track them into military service.
I kid.
But does it cause people to come out to pla-ay?
"Once genetic screening becomes widely available, should such young males be subject to greater scrutiny and perhaps be offered a drug treatment that reduces their risk of becoming violent?"
Or how about we screen women who might pass the genetic trait and tell them they cannot have children outside of a stable marriage.
Ron,
I believe "I as" S.B. "As I".
I'd keep an eye on this creeping dyslexia!
Appypolly loggies to the baboochkas in this mesto, but the occasional bitva might grow some of you grazhny bratchnies a set of dorogoy yarbles.
They gonna be sedated!
Once genetic screening becomes widely available, should such young males be subject to greater scrutiny and perhaps be offered a drug treatment that reduces their risk of becoming violent?
Well of course. It's literally For the children.
yarbles
Civilized? Civilized my syphilised yarbles.
All: Forget about pre-crime treatment - what about offering guys who have committed crimes and whose genetic tests show that they have the low activity MAOA gene the option of jail or treatment?
Well of course, we should investigate the behavioural differences of people and their relationship to physical traits, and then deal with these "defective units" in an appropriate manner.
But here's the question: Once genetic screening becomes widely available, should such young males be subject to greater scrutiny ...
NONBFN!
...and perhaps be offered a drug treatment that reduces their risk of becoming violent?
Assuming the testing was completely voluntary and not paid for by government and further assuming that the drug treatment option is left to, and paid for by, the parents themselves (or the individual after reaching the age of majority) and even further assuming that our all digital medical records are not available to government officials for any reason, even after conviction of a violent act, I'm not gonna bitch about it.
If only they could identify and eliminate/correct the gene that makes people want the things they didn't work for. I'd call it the "gimme" gene. That could be a disaster for people of one particular major political party.
If it can be shown the violent antisocial behavior is not a matter of choice, then it would be wrong to discriminate against those people with prison terms. Crimnals need to get on board with the highly successful gay strategy.
Do they include military and police in their definition of "gangs" in the study? I'd be interested to see how many boys in blue are genetic "warriors"...
It's probably a good idea to have a few Pattons or Enders available. Just in case.
Patton Oswald would be less than useless in a fight, J sub D.
All: Forget about pre-crime treatment - what about offering guys who have committed crimes and whose genetic tests show that they have the low activity MAOA gene the option of jail or treatment?
Still the answer is "Not only no, but fuck no".
One - It's mandatory testing with the government having access to the results (see my previous).
Two - Genetics ? Destiny.
"If it can be shown the violent antisocial behavior is not a matter of choice, then it would be wrong to discriminate against those people with prison terms. Crimnals need to get on board with the highly successful gay strategy."
Except being gay doesn't hurt anyone, unless you count their sensitivities. Not that private discrimination based on such shouldn't be legalized, but it's still a far cry from violent behavior.
Ron, I'll bite. Fine with me! But isn't there any precedence for that yet? Couldn't we already give criminals a choice of a lobotomy or something?
Aspartame -
Congrats, asshole. Made me google. 😉
J sub D,
"One - It's mandatory testing with the government having access to the results (see my previous)."
Slippery slopes notwithstanding, how about just for criminals? And just for criminals who opt for treatment if deemded treatable? I.e., even they would have a choice. (Though per my own previous, I do wonder if all criminals are already lobotomizable.)
"Two - Genetics ? Destiny."
What's your point? Are you worried about the moral implications or do you simply not believe the treatment would be effective at making recidivism unlikely? Naturally, I would think we'd be looking at a pilot program before any sort of widespread adoption.
Two - Genetics ? Destiny
But, I know for a fact that the presence of a Y chromosome automatically makes the bearer of said chromosome a rapist.
Ron, I'll bite. Fine with me! But isn't there any precedence for that yet? Couldn't we already give criminals a choice of a lobotomy or something?
Oooh, ooh! We could offer castration to pedophiles and rapists! Cut off peoples arms who assault others as an option! Crush the knees of purse snatchers! The possibilities are endless.
Forget about pre-crime treatment - what about offering guys who have committed crimes and whose genetic tests show that they have the low activity MAOA gene the option of jail or treatment?
Who determines when a person undergoing treatment is "cured?" No thanks. How about, if you commit violence on another person and it's not self defense, you go to jail, period?
Genetics ? Destiny.
Exactly.
If it can be shown the violent antisocial behavior is not a matter of choice,
Its always a matter of choice. Just because choosing not to be violent and antisocial is harder for some people doesn't mean they aren't responsible for their choices.
J sub D,
Damn. I always mis-spell his name.
Here is Patton on the KFC Bowls:
fyodor,
Look at how well we've done with the scarlet letter for "sex offenders". I fear what pandering politicians will do with "genetically predisposed violent criminals".
We can't ensure that dignosed schizophrenics take their meds, why add low activity MAOA treatment to the list of failures?
"Oooh, ooh! We could offer castration to pedophiles and rapists! Cut off peoples arms who assault others as an option! Crush the knees of purse snatchers! The possibilities are endless."
Well, mate, you've expounded on my own point that this new technology doesn't exactly make this a new concept or option. And so maybe there's an obvious reason why the wisdom of the ages has forsaken it that Ron and I are missing. Despite the razor sharp analysis contained in your snark, I'm still missing it!
An article on the near-forgotten Limbo by Bernard Wolfe.
War and violence is finally put to an end when the government replaces everyone's arms and legs with cybernetic limbs incapable of doing violence.
Look at how well we've done with the scarlet letter for "sex offenders". I fear what pandering politicians will do with "genetically predisposed violent criminals".
You mean sex offender registries? Well, again, if you fear slippery slopes, that's another matter. But I don't see how offering this choice to criminals would make it any more likely that the government will force screening on the unwilling and make the records public. Whatever the chances of the latter happening, I don't see how the former affects that likelihood.
We can't ensure that dignosed schizophrenics take their meds, why add low activity MAOA treatment to the list of failures?
Well, I'm not familiar with the nature of low activity MAOA treatment. Obviously any treatment that requires ongoing compliance is circumspect to say the least, and I think any option like this would only be something that's offered only once. Repeat offenders need not apply.
fyodor -
I do not believe that choosing a lobotomy over imprisonment can ever be a free choice in our justice system. It's is not difficult at all for me to envision District Attorney Gung Ho piling up the charges in order to convince the inner-city youth Tyrone Angry that his only option is to accept chemical alteration of his being, his "soul" or "self" as it were, as part of a plea bargain.
I guess I'm just a conservative at heart.
Well, again, if you fear slippery slopes, that's another matter.
If you don't, you're a fool.
All: Before implied comparisons with Mengele multiply, let me point you to my column on Prozac Justice: Does neuroscience require a therapeutic state?
In 1939 Margaret Sanger began "The Negro Project"and to bring people along willingly she enlisted black preachers to support sterilization. She outlined the deceitful plan in a letter to Clarence Gamble of the Procter and Gamble Empire,
"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population."
"It's is not difficult at all for me to envision District Attorney Gung Ho piling up the charges in order to convince the inner-city youth Tyrone Angry that his only option is to accept chemical alteration of his being, his "soul" or "self" as it were, as part of a plea bargain."
Isn't this a good description of "Ritalin". Replace District Attorney Gung Ho with Principal Gung Ho.
All: Before implied comparisons with Mengele multiply, let me point you to my column on Prozac Justice: Does neuroscience require a therapeutic state?
Like you didn't know that this thread was just begging to be Godwined. 😉
Noting the important difference that Principal Ho can't put student Angry in prison, I see the comparison.
Eugenics is so cool, like always.
The alternative is worse.
Except being gay doesn't hurt anyone, unless you count their sensitivities. Not that private discrimination based on such shouldn't be legalized, but it's still a far cry from violent behavior.
I didn't mean to imply anything at all negative about teh gays - just that they found the right way to dismiss the bigotry. If there were a criminal behavior gene, it would seem to me that such a thing should be considered during sentencing. You can't fault a cat for chasing a mouse. Well, you could, but human nature ought to be considered as well.
Genetics doesn't exist. It's a government conspiracy!
How much does poverty "predict" gang membership in comparison to this gene?
" I fear what pandering politicians will do with "genetically predisposed violent criminals"."
What if we find out there is a higher incidence of this gene in one group as opposed to another?
"But I don't see how offering this choice to criminals would make it any more likely that the government will force screening on the unwilling and make the records public. Whatever the chances of the latter happening, I don't see how the former affects that likelihood."
Beginning tomorrow, in Minnesota, the cops can pull you over for not having your seatbelt buckled. I remember years ago when the law was passed allowing the cops to ticket you for not wearing the belt. It had to be discovered after you were pulled over for something else. Back then, critics of the bill said, that may be true for now but in time, we envisage a day when the state will make it an offense on its own. "Never happen." said the bill's proponents. "Never happen."
The future is Neuroscience is the future.
Duh. ST:V predicted this, like, 300 from now.
"years"
Yo, fuck your white supremacist bullshit.
Well...
Have they isolated the "emo" gene yet?
Beginning tomorrow, in Minnesota, the cops can pull you over for not having your seatbelt buckled.
Yeah as soon as I saw that on an electric sign over 35 on my way home from work yesterday I took my seatbelt off. Talk about some ridiculous crap.
Ergo, people taking MAO inhibitors must be joining gangs, right? What a load of horse-pucky!