Who should fund and control the direction of human behavior genetics? Review of Nuffield Council on Bioethics 2002 report, genetics and human behaviour: the ethical context.

In this (Nuffield Council on Bioethics 2002), the third in its series on ethics and related issues in genetics (see also Nuffield Council on Bioethics 1993 and Nuffield Council on Bioethics 1998), the Nuffield Council has focused on four'normal' behaviors; intelligence, personality, antisocial behavior and sexual orientation. This is a narrow range of behaviors and one where their discussion of the potential impact of predictive genetic testing is probably inappropriate. They also take an unduly narrow view of the purposes of behavior genetics in the 21st century. It is not simply to estimate heritability but to understand more about the structure of behavior and the processes which underlie it. Their narrow focus and their negative approach to the history and achievements of genetics is reflected in their less than positive support for future behavior genetic research. Behavior geneticists need to do more to publicize what their field has achieved in order to counter the very extensive antibehavior genetics initiatives which are almost unique in science. At the same time, organizations such as the Nuffield Council need to consider carefully the impact their deliberations may have on research funding.