The ‘gene of’ is a teleosemantic expression that conveys a simplistic and linear relationship between a gene and a phenotype. Throughout the 20th century, geneticists studied these genes of traits. The studies were often polemical when they concerned human traits: the ‘crime gene’, ‘poverty gene’, ‘IQ gene’, ‘gay gene’ or ‘gene of alcoholism’. Quite recently, a controversy occurred in 2006 in New Zealand that started with the claim that a ‘warrior gene’ exists in the Mãori community. This claim came from (...) a geneticist working on the MAOA gene. This article is interested in the responsibility of that researcher regarding the origin of the controversy. Several errors were made: overestimation of results, abusive use of the ‘gene of’ kind of expression, poor communication with the media and a lack of scientific culture. The issues of the debate were not taken into account sufficiently, either from the political, social, ethical or even the genetic points of view. After more than 100 years of debates around ‘genes of’ all kinds (here, the ‘warrior gene’), geneticists may not hide themselves behind the media when a controversy occurs. Responsibilities have to be assumed. (shrink)

In modern societies, rhetoric focused on body and health is common as biomedical sciences have taken a big place in people’s lives. They must enhance the society, health and living conditions of citizens. Solving criminality problems remains a major challenge and the early detection of antisocial children - future offenders - promises to offer a solution to criminality thanks to science and medical advances. But in a democratic society that values ​​solidarism and pluralism and tends to preserve the social link, (...) it is necessary to question the ethical relevance of this method of managing criminality. This paper proposes to analyze these questions in the light of debates that have troubled France for a number of years. (shrink)

Genetics is in a postgenomic era, and this article illustrates this epistemological evolution using the debate between developmental criticism and traditional biometric genetics about gene × environment interaction. Quantitative geneticists are blamed for failing to respect the complexity of development; as a response, they claim a defensive position, called isolationist pluralism, which supports the idea that studying development is not their problem. But postgenomics seems to have accepted and integrated some developmental criticisms and the isolationist perspective has been challenged during (...) the last few years. The developmental and quantitative traditions actually represent two different levels of analysis, but biometrics has also a clear developmental explanatory potential as it suggests statistically the existence of mechanical causes. Both traditions work together to go ever further in the knowledge of the phenomena being studied. Postgenomic pluralism, instead of being isolationist, may be considered pragmatic. (shrink)