Psychiatric genetics: A methodologic critique

Virginia Institute for Psychiatry and Behavioral Genetics, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA.
American Journal of Psychiatry (Impact Factor: 13.56). 02/2005; 162(1):3-11. DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.162.1.3
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Psychiatric genetics, which is growing in size and influence within psychiatry, employs four major research paradigms: 1) basic genetic epidemiology, 2) advanced genetic epidemiology, 3) gene finding methods, and 4) molecular genetics. Paradigms 1 and 2 study aggregate genetic risk factors inferred from patterns of resemblance in relatives. Paradigms 3 and 4 study individual susceptibility genes localized on the human genome. Paradigms 1, 2, and 3 are statistical in nature, while paradigm 4 is biological. Genetic risk factors reflect the statistical signals from susceptibility genes. Whether it will be possible to identify all the susceptibility genes that underlie genetic risk factors is uncertain. Furthermore, given current research methods, the inability to detect susceptibility genes cannot disconfirm evidence for genetic risk factors. While paradigms 3 and 4 can provide great explanatory power by tracing etiologic pathways back to basic biological mechanisms, genetic epidemiology can also provide important etiologic insights, albeit of a less basic nature. While paradigms 3 and 4 may eventually replace paradigms 1 and 2, this shift is unlikely to occur quickly. Therefore, the field of psychiatric genetics would do best to integrate these four paradigms, stressing their relative strengths and limitations. This integration can be best done within an overall framework of explanatory pluralism that values a range of reductive explanations across varying levels of biological and psychological complexity.

  • Source
  • Source
    The American Psychiatric Publishing Textbook of Personality Disorders, Edited by Oldham, Skodal, Bender, 01/2005: chapter 9: pages 143-154; American Psychiatric Press.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Personalized medicine is the latest promise of a gene-centered biomedicine to provide treatments custom-tailored to the specific needs of patients. Although surrounded by much hype, personalized medicine at present lacks the empirical and theoretical foundations necessary to render it a realistic long-term perspective. In particular, the role of genetic data and the relationship between causal understanding, prediction, prevention, and treatment of a disease need clarifying. This article critically examines the concept of information in genetics and its relation to modern-day genetic determinism, using pharmacogenetics, personalized medicine's core discipline, as a test case. The article concludes that: (1) genetic knowledge does not constitute a privileged basis for personalized medicine because there is an a priori complete causal parity of genetic and nongenetic resources of development; and (2) prediction, prevention, and treatment all depend on a causal-mechanistic understanding that will follow only from integrating data across the whole gamut of developmental factors-genetic and non-genetic. In a future successful personalized medicine, genes will have no special status, either as determinants of phenotype, markers of disease or as targets of treatment.
    Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 01/2013; 56(4):485-512. DOI:10.1353/pbm.2013.0040 · 0.54 Impact Factor


Available from