Behavioural Genetics in Criminal Cases: Past, Present and Future

Researchers studying human behavioral genetics have made significant scientific progress in enhancing our understanding of the relative contributions of genetics and the environment in observed variations in human behavior. Quickly outpacing the advances in the science are its applications in the criminal justice system. Already, human behavioral genetics research has been introduced in the U.S. criminal justice system, and its use will only become more prevalent. This essay discusses the recent historical use of behavioral genetics in criminal cases, recent advances in two gene variants of particular interest in the criminal law, MAOA and SLC6A4, the recent expert testimony on behalf of criminal defendants with respect to these two gene variants, and the future direction of behavioral genetics evidence in criminal cases

Misinformation, Misrepresentation, and Misuse of Human Behavioral Genetics Research

Kaplan discusses the limitations of human behavioral genetics studies, highlighting the research limitations inherent in studying humans and the narrow policy and legal applicability of results arising from behavioral genetics studies

Behavioral Genetics Research and Criminal DNA Databases

Kaye discusses DNA databanks and the potential use of such databanks for behavioral genetics research. He addresses the concern that DNA databanks serve as a limitless repository for future research and that the samples used in the databanks could be used for research into a crime gene

Considering Convergence: A Policy Dialogue About Behavioral Genetics, Neuroscience, and Law

Garland and Frankel issue a call for scientists, lawyers, courts and lawmakers to begin a critical dialogue about the implications of scientific discoveries and technological advances in criminal law, behavioral genetics and neuroscience

Developmental imaging genetics: challenges and promises for translational research

Advances in molecular biology, neuroimaging, genetic epidemiology, and developmental psychopathology have provided a unique opportunity to explore the interplay of genes, brain, and behavior within a translational research framework. Herein, we begin by outlining an experimental strategy by which genetic effects on brain function can be explored using neuroimaging, namely, imaging genetics. We next describe some major findings in imaging genetics to highlight the effectiveness of this strategy for delineating biological pathways and mechanisms by which individual differences in brain function emerge and potentially bias behavior and risk for psychiatric illness. We then discuss the importance of applying imaging genetics to the study of psychopathology within a developmental framework. By beginning to move toward a systems-level approach to understanding pathways to behavioral outcomes as they are expressed across development, it is anticipated that we will move closer to understanding the complexities of the specific mechanisms involved in the etiology of psychiatric disease. Despite the numerous challenges that lie ahead, we believe that developmental imaging genetics has potential to yield highly informative results that will ultimately translate into public health benefits. We attempt to set out guidelines and provide exemplars that may help in designing fruitful translational research applications that incorporate a developmental imaging genetics strategy

A Review on the Cognitive Neuroscience of Autism

With increased recognition in the media, heightened prevalence, and advances in research technologies, investigation into the causes of autism has broadened in recent years. Studies at the molecular, structural, and behavioral levels have resulted in significant findings, linking autism to qualitative differences in neurological function and an alteration of early development. Familial aggregation of autism demonstrate a strong genetic factor, although genetics can not completely account for its pathogenesis. Studies show autism having one of the most complex pathologies among neurodevelopmental disorders. Future studies applying sophisticated methodologies in new areas may shed light on current mysteries surrounding the disorder

Kinesin Light Chains Are Essential for Axonal Transport in Drosophila

Kinesin is a heterotetramer composed of two 115-kD heavy chains and two 58-kD light chains. The microtubule motor activity of kinesin is performed by the heavy chains, but the functions of the light chains are poorly understood. Mutations were generated in the Drosophila gene Kinesin light chain (Klc), and the phenotypic consequences of loss of Klc function were analyzed at the behavioral and cellular levels. Loss of Klc function results in progressive lethargy, crawling defects, and paralysis followed by death at the end of the second larval instar. Klc mutant axons contain large aggregates of membranous organelles in segmental nerve axons. These aggregates, or organelle jams (Hurd, D.D., and W.M. Saxton. 1996. Genetics. 144: 1075-1085), contain synaptic vesicle precursors as well as organelles that may be transported by kinesin, kinesin-like protein 68D, and cytoplasmic dynein, thus providing evidence that the loss of Klc function blocks multiple pathways of axonal transport. The similarity of the Klc and Khc ((Saxton et al. Cell 64:1093-1102; Hurd, D.D., and W.M. Saxton. 1996. Genetics 144: 1075-1085) mutant phenotypes indicates that KLC is essential for kinesin function, perhaps by tethering KHC to intracellular cargos or by activating the kinesin motor

What Explains Differences in Smoking, Drinking and Other Health-Related Behaviors?

We explore economic model of health behaviors. While the standard economic model of health as an investment is generally supported empirically, the ability of this model to explain heterogeneity across individuals is extremely limited. Most prominently, the correlation of different health behaviors across people is virtually zero, suggest that standard factors such as variation in discount rates or the value of life are not the drivers of behavior. We focus instead on two other factors: genetics; and behavioral-specific situational factors. The first factor is empirically important, and we suspect the second is as well.