NYT
May 27, 2008
Editorial

It’s the Genes, Stupid

Social scientists are stumped. Why do we bother to go to the polls
when we know our individual vote has no chance of determining the
result of a national election? Variations in turnout — by age, race,
income or whatever — are hard to fit into a theory of human conduct
that assumes that people are rational. But with time to spare before
the November election, molecular biology is coming to the rescue. In
the same way that researchers have teased out a role for genes in
determining sexual orientation or the propensity to smoke, they are
deploying genetics to understand our political choices.

That sounds like a stretch, and it may well be. But there is tempting
evidence of a hereditary component to political choices. There is a
strong correlation between the partisan choices of parents and
children. Studies comparing identical and fraternal twins suggest that
genes are at work alongside the social and psychological influence of
parents. Political scientists at the University of California, San
Diego have gone another step, identifying specific genes associated
with voter participation and partisanship.

It seems as if people with one variant of the MAOA gene are more
likely to vote than those with the other version. Among regular
churchgoers, those with one type of the gene that make the 5HTT
transporter molecule in the walls of neuron cells (don’t ask) are
substantially more likely to vote than those with the other.

According to the researchers, James H. Fowler and Christopher T.
Dawes, it works more or less like this: stress causes the release of
excess serotonin in the brain, which can kill off neurons if it is not
metabolized. People with the right versions of the MAOA gene and 5HTT
are better at handling stress because they are better at synthesizing
the molecules needed to reabsorb serotonin and break it down. And
people who are better at handling stress deal better with the
conflicts and strains inherent in forming political opinions and
voting.

Similarly, folks with the A2 version of the D2 dopamine receptor gene
are more likely to identify as partisans because better dopamine
signaling in the brain is related to more social attitudes and
promotes attachment to groups like political parties.

Of course, these findings don’t have to mean that we are robots. They
merely suggest that genes affect how susceptible we are to social and
environmental stimuli. If certain genes make us more receptive to
political messages, or more or less likely to vote, then we know the
next step society must take: Keep the drugs that target the specific
genes out of the hands of political consultants.