Image source: The DNA Life (artwork by Fong Qi Wei)
In an opinion piece at the NYTimes, Jay Belsky, a professor of Human Development at UC Davis, argues that funding and developmental programs for children could be more effectively allocated based on genetic information. Belsky cites research from a forthcoming issue of the journal Development and Psychopathology that provides evidence that children show varying levels of susceptibility to their environments and stress, and that this variability in response can be traced to specific genes. Thus, children with one type of gene are orchids--highly sensitive to their environments, and more responsive to interventions--while children with another type are dandelions--less susceptible to environmental factors as well as less responsive to interventions. For this reason, Belsky labels resilience a double-edged sword: children who are resilient are not as adversely affected by negative or unsupportive environments, but they also don't see the same boost from developmental programs aimed at improving life outcomes. While this is, in and of itself, an interesting and thought-provoking finding, Belsky takes it one step further by suggesting that we should use DNA sequencing to identify and target children that will be more responsive to interventions - arguing both in terms of efficiency and ethicality. This recommendation is qualified by the need for additional research and technology, but he envisions the following:
"One might even imagine a day when we could genotype all the children in an elementary school to ensure that those who could most benefit from help got the best teachers. Not only because they would improve the most, but also because they would suffer the most from lower quality instruction. The less susceptible — and more resilient — children are more likely to do O.K. no matter what. After six or seven years, this approach could substantially enhance student achievement and well-being."
Of course, this is a bit of a slippery slope. While Belsky is not a proponent of abandoning the resilient children altogether, it is hard not to see this as the most likely outcome. There is a sense of "well, the dandelion children will do fine no matter what, so what difference does it make?" Belsky suggests that other forms of intervention can be found for these types of children, but in a society that seemingly values cost-effectiveness and efficiency above all else, the quickest, cheapest fix is to genotype all children, put the orchids with the best teachers and the most funding/programs, and put the dandelions with the sub-par teachers and less funding/programs. Then, ultimately, everyone will come out in the middle. I don't want to harp on Belsky too much because I do think he makes some good points, and he tries to argue that it shouldn't be just about saving money, but there is still something unsavory to the idea of using a person's resilience against them. Especially, when we have no idea what the limits to that resilience may be.
"One might even imagine a day when we could genotype all the children in an elementary school to ensure that those who could most benefit from help got the best teachers. Not only because they would improve the most, but also because they would suffer the most from lower quality instruction. The less susceptible — and more resilient — children are more likely to do O.K. no matter what. After six or seven years, this approach could substantially enhance student achievement and well-being."
Of course, this is a bit of a slippery slope. While Belsky is not a proponent of abandoning the resilient children altogether, it is hard not to see this as the most likely outcome. There is a sense of "well, the dandelion children will do fine no matter what, so what difference does it make?" Belsky suggests that other forms of intervention can be found for these types of children, but in a society that seemingly values cost-effectiveness and efficiency above all else, the quickest, cheapest fix is to genotype all children, put the orchids with the best teachers and the most funding/programs, and put the dandelions with the sub-par teachers and less funding/programs. Then, ultimately, everyone will come out in the middle. I don't want to harp on Belsky too much because I do think he makes some good points, and he tries to argue that it shouldn't be just about saving money, but there is still something unsavory to the idea of using a person's resilience against them. Especially, when we have no idea what the limits to that resilience may be.
RSS Feed
