Genome-wide analysis identifies molecular systems and 149 genetic loci associated with income, 2019, Hill et al

I'm so glad that such urgently needed research such as this is being done...

Open access, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-13585-5

 

In a meritocratic society in which income was directly (or, hell, even indirectly) associated with particular traits, like skill, talent and general abilities, this could be moderately useful. Not even accounting for those who, like us, have next to zero income because of circumstances and of course that cannot be accounted for since for the most part the relevant data don't even exist.

Another great example of everything wrong with BPS, this tells nothing about anything but it sure has a lot of lies-damned-lies-and-statistics, interpretation and analysis while pointing at biological things that may or may not be relevant (but very likely are not). Or put another way: ask useless questions, get useless answers.

 

I tried to look at the UK Biobank but I cannot find an income trait so cannot really tell if this is BS.

However I did find a good topic to write a paper on - Number of cars in Household. Definitely something very significant happening on Chromosome 20 - dots are p-value < 0.0001 so must be good, right!

Source : http://geneatlas.roslin.ed.ac.uk/re...2961&minregion=0&chrom=20&representation=plot



I agree with @Andy

 

The idea that there is a "Social, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry" sub discipline horrifies me somewhat. (Stuart Ritchie) Those three things seem benign enough until put in the hands of ideologists with a psych degree.

The actual biomedical expertise (sequencing) seems to have come from Addenbrook's in Cambridge. Sad, as that just makes them enablers of the silliness.

And it seems to be the psychiatric brainchild of Edinburgh and Karolinska's psychiatry departments.

 

I actually think this sort of analysis may be very important to any genetic studies of ME.

The biggest problem I see with a GWAS study of ME patients is spurious linkage related to biased recruitment. Biased recruitment might well track to income or other social factors. It would be a huge waste of time if ten years was spent chasing genes that looked to be relevant to ME but were just socio-economic markers. If the UK Biobank knows about these genes they can rapidly identify such spurious links.

 

it is likely the data was already there and these unusual people decided to create their less than use full paper .

 

I can't judge the quality of this paper without knowing the authors' incomes.

 

Maybe they found the ME/CFS gene! After all, ME/CFS -> no income, no ME/CFS -> income.

Just kidding...

It really sucks though that many of us can't pursue their financial goals, due to this disease. Hell, most don't even get approved for disability pensions.

 

I don't understand the hostility to this sort of research. Why is it wrong to ask this question? Why would we not want information about how society works so as to inform intelligent policymaking? What would be the benefit of banning or suppressing investigations of available data?

 

I tried to post an example above in a light hearted manner how data can say one thing, but does the data make common sense? Just because a paper is written with nice big words by important sounding "scientists" with very significant P-values doesn't mean it's right. Why would income relate to genetics? Why would number of cars in a household relate to genetics? Doesn't make sense. For income, if the significant variants are related to disability then you could believe it, but I don't think that is what the authors are saying.

We all on here got excited on the UK Biobank GWAS report by Chris Ponting that turned out to be erroneous relating to P4HA1 and collagen synthesis.
Thread : https://www.s4me.info/threads/analy...erited-component-to-me-cfs-ponting-blog.4529/
Blog : https://mecfsresearchreview.me/2018...emonstrates-an-inherited-component-to-me-cfs/

Even Jen Brea was using this in her tweets
https://twitter.com/user/status/1069296003122114561


@paolo pointed out in the comments of the blog that the variant that was VERY significant was for ONE person. ONE person only. Chris Ponting agreed.

 

It's late here for me so to answer really briefly on my part. I don't know much about genetic research but it seems to me that searching for this kind of link is not at all the same as finding a link to a genetic disease. With a GD I think you would get pretty immediate feedback if your information was wrong.

Two things about asking such a question. First problem I see is the same as the BPS with their belief in the efficacy of GET. The research was jiggered to provide the answer they were looking for. The second problem is a bit tricky to answer here on the forum but basically do you really think any data is going to lead to intelligent policy being made with regard to income? I'm not even sure anybody knows what that is.

Just an opinion. As I said I don't know much about this type of research. But it sounds like something that can be easily manipulated and there seems to be a great deal of willingness to do so. I would not want social policy to depend on dodgy data.

 

For a highly opinionated (negative) view of this study see https://forbetterscience.com/2019/12/17/bah-humbug/ in which, interestingly, there is a suggestion that the ethical approval may not match the published study.

 

Leonid Schneider is thinking what I'm thinking

 

Thanks @Andy, that was brilliant. Loved this bit

 

I agree with James here. It may be that people doing this research are covert racists or whatever but it is still reasonable to look at this. Genes will not be the only cause of being rich but they may contribute.

What I find odd is the blanket objection to this sort of study on the grounds that it would lead to unfair treatment of the poor.

 

Laughing for the sake of laughing (if it doesn´t reach too far).

You are somewhat right, I think, and it isn´t going be helpful to hide any possible informations, or to restrict any discussion. But todays world can´t be seen as the last word in the development of human life. We are even away from behave stable in a natural environment (at least it would be new to me).

The paper might possibly act in a hasty way - if there is the suggestion around that some ppl are in some essential manner better b/c they seem to behave more successful.


I remember slightly some research coming up with bold guesses regarding ME/CFS without announcing that they were doing bold guesses (as far as I know), and patients ended up in getting bad treatments. There have been suggestions around, I would say, "these strange patients" and whatever.

Finally, if I am allowed to say this, humanity cannot be seperated from living together and care for each other to some extend.

 

I think there is a risk that, just like in the eugenics movement, the importance of inherited genetic factors will be overestimated, while all the other factors will be downplayed. It would be a perfect excuse to NOT examine factors related to income like policy.

 

Didn't Deary write something on ME?