Scene from movie GATTACA: www.youtube.com/watch?v=lP1cCjBkWZU (accessed November 29, 2019).Google Scholar

Estimates for how many people have taken a genetic test: www.technologyreview.com/s/612880/more-than-26-million-people-have-taken-an-at-home-ancestry-test (accessed July 7, 2020); https://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2020/02/05/our-path-forward (accessed July 7, 2020).Google Scholar

On the definition of scientific expertise: Nichols, T. M. (2017). The Death of Expertise: The Campaign against Established Knowledge and Why It Matters. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 28–39.Google Scholar

On “imagenation”: Van Dijck, J. (1998). Imagenation: Popular Images of Genetics. London: Macmillan, pp. 11, 198.Google Scholar

Quotation of O’Riordan, K. (2010). The Genome Incorporated: Constructing Biodigital Identity. New York: Routledge, p. 14.Google Scholar

Links to the media articles (all accessed on March 18, 2020): https://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/06/showbiz/gallery/hollywood-famous-parents-kids/index.html; www.ft.com/content/419733b2-e181-11e6-9645-c9357a75844a; www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170123151411.htm; www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5934673/Being-rich-successful-really-genes-study-suggests.html; www.thetimes.co.uk/article/scientists-find-24-golden-genes-that-help-you-get-rich-mfdf8z9jb; www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2019/02/28/key-happy-marriage-genes-scientists-discover; https://nypost.com/2019/03/07/this-gene-could-be-the-secret-to-a-happy-marriage-study; www.nytimes.com/2015/05/24/opinion/sunday/infidelity-lurks-in-your-genes.html?partner=rss&emc=rss; www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2954349/Women-likely-cheat-partner-carry-infidelity-gene-scientists-discover.html; www.genepartner.comGoogle Scholar

For the definition of geneticization: Lippman, A. (1991). Prenatal genetic testing and screening: constructing needs and reinforcing inequities. American Journal of Law and Medicine, 17(1–2), 15–50, p. 19.Google Scholar

Quotation of Ruth Hubbard: Hubbard, R., and Wald, E. (1997). Exploding the Gene Myth: How Genetic Information Is Produced and Manipulated by Scientists, Physicians, Employers, Insurance Companies, Educations, and Law Enforcers. Boston: Beacon Press, p. 164.Google Scholar

Quotations of Nelkin and Lindee: Nelkin, D., and Lindee, S. M. (2004). The DNA Mystique: The Gene as a Cultural Icon. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, p. 16, p. 2, p. 204.Google Scholar

Study of magazine articles: Condit, C. M. (1999). The Meanings of the Gene: Public Debates about Human Heredity. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar

Study of newspaper articles: Carver, R. B., Rødland, E. A., and Breivik, J. (2013). Quantitative frame analysis of how the gene concept is presented in tabloid and elite newspapers. Science Communication, 35(4), 449–475.Google Scholar

Study of science fiction films: Kirby, D. A. (2007). The devil in our DNA: a brief history of eugenics in science fiction films. Literature and Medicine, 26(1), 83–108.Google Scholar

Study of science fiction films and novels: Hamner, E. (2017). Editing the Soul: Science and Fiction in the Genome Age. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, pp. 9–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Study of television series: Bull, S. (2019). Television and the Genetic Imaginary. London: Palgrave Macmillan (quotations from p. 216).Google Scholar

On WEIRD people: Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., and Norenzayan, A. (2010). Most people are not WEIRD. Nature, 466(7302), 29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Global study across 22 countries on public perceptions of genomics: Middleton, A., Milne, R., Almarri, M. A., et al. (2020). Global public perceptions of genomic data sharing: what shapes the willingness to donate DNA and health data? American Journal of Human Genetics, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2020.08.023.Google Scholar

On genetic exceptionalism: Middleton, A., Milne, R., Howard, H., et al., on behalf of the Participant Values Work Stream of the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health. (2020). Members of the public in the USA, UK, Canada and Australia expressing genetic exceptionalism say they are more willing to donate genomic data. European Journal of Human Genetics, 28, 424–434.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Coriell Personalized Medicine Collaborative: Schmidlen, T. J., Scheinfeldt, L., Zhaoyang, R., et al. (2016). Genetic knowledge among participants in the Coriell Personalized Medicine Collaborative. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 25(2), 385–394.Google Scholar

Survey about the genetic and environmental contributions to variation in 21 human traits: Willoughby, E. A., Love, A. C., McGue, M., et al. (2019). Free will, determinism, and intuitive judgments about the heritability of behavior. Behavior Genetics, 49(2), 136–153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Survey with articles on behavior genetics: Morin-Chassé, A. (2014). Public (mis)understanding of news about behavioral genetics research: a survey experiment. BioScience, 64(12), 1170–1177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

On people being genetic essentialists: Dar-Nimrod, I., Cheung, B., Ruby, M., and Heine, S. (2014). Can merely learning about obesity genes affect eating behavior? Appetite, 81, 269–276; Heine, S. J. (2017). DNA is Not Destiny: The Remarkable, Completely Misunderstood Relationship between You and Your Genes. New York: W.W. Norton; Heine, S. J., Cheung, B. Y., and Schmalor, A. (2019). Making sense of genetics: the problem of essentialism. Hastings Center Report, 49(3), S19–S26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Jolie’s essays in the New York Times: Jolie, A: My medical choice. New York Times, May 14, 2013, p. A25; Jolie Pitt, A: Angelina Jolie Pitt: diary of a surgery. New York Times, March 24, 2015, p.A23.Google Scholar

Studies on Internet information-seeking queries: Noar, S. M., Althouse, B. M., Ayers, J. W., Francis, D. B., and Ribisl, K. M. (2015). Cancer information seeking in the digital age: effects of Angelina Jolie’s prophylactic mastectomy announcement. Medical Decision Making, 35(1), 16–21;Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Study of newspaper accounts of Angelina Jolie’s double mastectomy: Kamenova, K., Reshef, A., and Caulfield, T. (2014). Angelina Jolie’s faulty gene: newspaper coverage of a celebrity’s preventive bilateral mastectomy in Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Genetics in Medicine, 16(7), 522–528.Google Scholar

Study of website accounts of Angelina Jolie’s double mastectomy: Dean, M. (2016). Celebrity health announcements and online health information seeking: an analysis of Angelina Jolie’s preventative health decision. Health Communication, 31(6), 752–761.Google Scholar

Studies on the public perception and understanding of Jolie’s story: Borzekowski, D. L. G., Guan, Y., Smith, K. C., Erby, L. H., and Roter, D. L. (2013). The Angelina effect: immediate reach, grasp, and impact of going public. Genetics in Medicine, 16, 516–521;Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

On risk and probabilities: Gigerenzer, G. (2002). Calculated Risks: How to Know When Numbers Deceive You. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar

Data on breast cancer: American Cancer Society (2019). Breast Cancer Facts & Figures 2019–2020. Atlanta: American Cancer Society (data and quotations from pp. 4, 13).Google Scholar

Study of women with early-onset breast cancer: Copson, E. R., Maishman, T. C., Tapper, W. J., et al. (2018). Germline BRCA mutation and outcome in young-onset breast cancer (POSH): a prospective cohort study. The Lancet Oncology, 19(2), 169–180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

On population screening for BRCA genes: King, M.-C., Levy-Lahad, E., and Lahad, A. (2014). Population-based screening for BRCA1 and BRCA2. Journal of the American Medical Association, 312, 1091.Google Scholar

On familial breast cancer: Wendt, C., and Margolin, S. (2019). Identifying breast cancer susceptibility genes: a review of the genetic background in familial breast cancer. Acta Oncologica, 58(2), 135–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Steinberg, D. L. (2015). Genes and the Bioimaginary: Science, Spectacle, Culture. Farnham: Ashgate, p. 159.Google Scholar

On the history of heredity: Müller-Wille, S., and Rheinberger, H-J. (2012). A Cultural History of Heredity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

On the history of the gene concept: Rheinberger, H. J., and Müller-Wille, S. (2017). The Gene: From Genetics to Postgenomics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; Beurton, P., Falk, R., and Rheinberger, H. J. (Eds) (2000). The Concept of the Gene in Development and Evolution: Historical and Epistemological Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Keller, E. F. (2000). The Century of the Gene. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

On the history of Mendel’s work: Olby, R. C. (1985). Origins of Mendelism (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Mendel’s paper: Mendel, G. (2016). Experiments on plant hybrids (1866). Translation and commentary by Staffan Müller-Wille and Kersten Hall. British Society for the History of Science Translation Series, www.bshs.org.uk/bshs-translations/mendel (accessed September 25, 2020).Google Scholar

Johannsen’s quotations come from: Roll-Hansen, N. (2014). Commentary: Wilhelm Johannsen and the problem of heredity at the turn of the 19th century. International Journal of Epidemiology, 43(4), 1007–1013.Google Scholar

On the work of Morgan and his collaborators: Kohler, R. E. (1994). Lords of the Fly: Drosophila Genetics and the Experimental Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Quotations from Morgan: Morgan, T. H. (1913). Factors and unit characters in Mendelian heredity. American Naturalist, 47, 5–16, p. 5; Morgan, T. H., Sturtevant, A. H., Muller, H. J., and Bridges, C. B. (1915). The Mechanism of Mendelian Heredity. New York: Henry Holt and Company, pp. 208–210; Morgan, T. H. (1917). The theory of the gene. American Naturalist, 51, 513–544, pp. 514–515, 517; Morgan, T. H. (1926). The Theory of the Gene. New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 309–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

On the first evidence about genes being material entities: Muller, H. J. (1927). Artificial transmutation of the gene. Science, 46, 84–87, p. 86;Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

“Thomas H. Morgan – Nobel Lecture: The Relation of Genetics to Physiology and Medicine,” www.nobelprize.org/nobelprizes/medicine/laureates/1933/morgan-lecture.htmlGoogle Scholar

Quotation from Beadle and Tatum: Beadle, G. W., and Tatum, E. L. (1941). Genetic control of biochemical reactions in Neurospora. Proceedings of the National Academies of Science USA, 27, 499–506, p. 506.Google Scholar

On the history of molecular biology: Judson, H. F. (1996). The Eighth Day of Creation: The Makers of the Revolution in Biology (Commemorative Edition). New York: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; Morange, M. (1998). A History of Molecular Biology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; Olby, R. (1994/1974). The Path to the Double Helix. New York: Dover; Kay, L. E. (2000). Who Wrote the Book of Life? A History of the Genetic Code. Stanford: Stanford University Press; Cobb, M. (2015). Life’s Greatest Secret: The Story of the Race to Crack the Genetic Code. London: Profile Books.Google Scholar

On the Lmbr1/Shh example: Hill, R. E., and Lettice, L. A. (2013). Alterations to the remote control of Shh gene expression cause congenital abnormalities. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Part B, 368, 20120357; Griffiths, P., and Stotz, K. (2013). Genetics and Philosophy: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 61.Google Scholar

On the developmental gene concept: Gilbert, S. F. (2000). Genes classical and genes developmental. In Beurton, P. J., Falk, R., and Rheinberger, H. J. (Eds). The Concept of the Gene in Development and Evolution: Historical and Epistemological Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 178–192; Morange, M. (2000). The developmental gene concept. In Beurton, P. J., Falk, R., & Rheinberger, H. J. (Eds). The Concept of the Gene in Development and Evolution: Historical and Epistemological Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 193–215.Google Scholar

On alternative splicing: Keren, H., Lev-Maor, G., and Ast, G. (2010). Alternative splicing and evolution: diversification, exon definition and function. Nature Reviews Genetics, 11(5), 345–355;Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

On trans-splicing: Preußer, C., and Bindereif, A. (2013). Exo-endo trans splicing: a new way to link. Cell Research, 23(9), 1071.Google Scholar

On overlapping genes: Makalowska, I., Lin, C. F., and Makalowski, W. (2005). Overlapping genes in vertebrate genomes. Computational Biology and Chemistry, 29(1), 1–12.Google Scholar

A superb summary of the important findings about the complexities of genes during the 1970s and the 1980s is given in Gros, F. (1991). Les Secrets du Géne. Paris: Odile Jacob (quotation from p. 297, emphasis in the original, my translation).Google Scholar

Baltimore on the “brain of a cell”: Baltimore, D. (1984). The brain of a cell. Science 84, 5(9): 149–151.Google Scholar

Watson on HGP: Watson, J. D. (1992). A personal view of the project. In Kevles, D. J., and Hood, L. (Eds). The Code of Codes: Scientific and Social Issues in the Human Genome Project. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 164–173, pp. 167–168, 173.Google Scholar

Gilbert on HGP: Gilbert, W. (1992). A vision of the grail. In Kevles, D. J., and Hood, L. (Eds). The Code of Codes: Scientific and Social Issues in the Human Genome Project. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 83–97, p. 96.Google Scholar

On the history of the Human Genome Project: Gannett, L. (2019). The Human Genome Project. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (winter 2019 edition), Edward N. Zalta (Ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2019/entries/human-genome; Davies, K. (2001). Cracking the Genome: Inside the Race to Unlock Human DNA. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar

Genes do not cause characteristics: Keller, E. F. (1994). Master molecules. In Cranor, C. (Ed.). Are Genes Us? The Social Consequences of the New Genetics. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 89–98, p. 90.Google Scholar

On the concept of genetic disease: Keller, E. F. (1992). Nature, nurture, and the human genome project. In Kevles, D. J., and Hood, L. (Eds). The Code of Codes: Scientific and Social Issues in the Human Genome Project. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 281–299.Google Scholar

For an accessible presentation of genome technologies: Snyder, M. (2016). Genomics and Personalized Medicine: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Quotations from Lander: Lander, E. S. (1996). The new genomics: global views of biology. Science, 274(5287), 536–539;Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Quotations and information about the ENCODE project: ENCODE Project Consortium. (2004). The ENCODE (ENCyclopedia of DNA elements) project. Science, 306(5696), 636–640;Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

ENCODE definition of gene: Gerstein, M. B., Bruce, C., Rozowsky, J. S., et al. (2007). What is a gene, post-ENCODE? History and updated definition. Genome Research, 17(6), 669–681.Google Scholar

ENCODE on gene function: ENCODE Project Consortium (2012). An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome. Nature, 489(7414), 57–74.Google Scholar

On criticisms of the ENCODE project’s conclusions about gene function: Eddy, S. R. (2013). The ENCODE project: missteps overshadowing a success. Current Biology, 23(7), R259–R261;Google ScholarGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar

Response to criticisms of the ENCODE project: Mattick, J. S., and Dinger, M. E. (2013). The extent of functionality in the human genome. HUGO Journal, 7(1), 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Latest ENCODE findings: Snyder, M. P., Gingeras, T. R., Moore, J. E., et al. (2020). Perspectives on ENCODE. Nature, 583(7818), 693–698.Google Scholar

On GWAS: Tam, V., Patel, N., Turcotte, M., et al. (2019). Benefits and limitations of genome-wide association studies. Nature Reviews Genetics, 20(8), 467–484;Google ScholarGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar

On human genetic variation: Frazer, K. A., Murray, S. S., Schork, N. J., and Topol, E. J. (2009). Human genetic variation and its contribution to complex traits. Nature Reviews Genetics, 10(4), 241–251.Google Scholar

On multiple causes: Cranor, C. F. (2013). Assessing genes as causes of human disease in a multi-causal world. In Krimsky, S., and Gruber, J. (Eds). Genetic Explanations: Sense and Nonsense. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 107–121.Google Scholar

On the concept of postgenomics: Richardson, S. S., and Stevens, H. (Eds). (2015). Postgenomics: Perspectives on Biology after the Genome. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar

For the definition of the “postgenomic gene”: Griffiths, P., and Stotz, K. (2013). Genetics and Philosophy: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

On the definition of the postgenomic genome: Keller, E. F. (2015). The postgenomic genome. In Richardson, S. S., and Stevens, H. (Eds). Postgenomics: Perspectives on Biology after the Genome. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 9–31.Google Scholar

For the genetics of eye color: Sturm, R. A., and Frudakis, T. N. (2004). Eye colour: portals into pigmentation genes and ancestry. TRENDS in Genetics, 20(8), 327–332;Google ScholarGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar

“80 percent of the variation in height is due to genetic factors”: Visscher, P. M., Medland, S. E., Ferreira, M. A. R., et al. (2006). Assumption-free estimation of heritability from genome-wide identity-by-descent sharing between full siblings. PLoS Genetics, 2(3), e41.Google Scholar

Studies of the genetics of height: Visscher, P. M. (2008). Sizing up human height variation. Nature Genetics, 40(5), 489–490;Google ScholarGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar

MAOA studies: Brunner, H. G., Nelen, M. R., Van Zandvoort, P., et al. (1993). X-linked borderline mental retardation with prominent behavioral disturbance: phenotype, genetic localization, and evidence for disturbed monoamine metabolism. American Journal of Human Genetics, 52(6), 1032–1039; Brunner, H. G., Nelen, M., Breakefield, X. O., et al. (1993). Abnormal behavior associated with a point mutation in the structural gene for monoamine oxidase A. Science, 262(5133), 578–580;Google ScholarGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar

On thalassemias: Weatherall, D. J. (2001). Phenotype–genotype relationships in monogenic disease: lessons from the thalassaemias. Nature Reviews Genetics, 2(4), 245–255;Google ScholarGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar

On familial hypercholesterolemia: Goldstein, J. L., and Brown, M. S. (2015). A century of cholesterol and coronaries: from plaques to genes to statins. Cell, 161(1), 161–172;Google ScholarGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar

On the importance of mutations for cancer: Wu, S., Powers, S., Zhu, W., and Hannun, Y. A. (2016). Substantial contribution of extrinsic risk factors to cancer development. Nature, 529(7584), 43–47;Google ScholarGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar

On mutation rates in humans: Kong, A., Frigge, M. L., Masson, G., et al. (2012). Rate of de novo mutations and the importance of father’s age to disease risk. Nature, 488(7412), 471–475;Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

On the tissue organization field theory of cancer: Sonnenschein, C., and Soto, A. M. (2013). The aging of the 2000 and 2011 hallmarks of cancer reviews: a critique. Journal of Biosciences, 38(3), 651–663; Sonnenschein, C., and Soto, A. M. (2013). Cancer genes: the vestigial remains of a fallen theory. In Krimsky, S., and Gruber J. (Eds). Genetic Explanations: Sense and Nonsense. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 81–93; Sonnenschein, C., and Soto, A. M. (2020). Over a century of cancer research: inconvenient truths and promising leads. PLoS Biology, 18(4), e3000670.Google Scholar

Plutynski, A. (2018). Explaining Cancer: Finding Order in Disorder. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Plutynski, A. (2019). Cancer modelling: the advantages and limitations of multiple perspectives. In Massimi, M., and McCoy, C. D. (Eds). Understanding Perspectivism: Scientific Challenges and Methodological Prospects. New York: Routledge, 160–177.Google Scholar

On the experiments of Roux and Driesch: Maienschein, J. (2014). Embryos under the Microscope: The Diverging Meanings of Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 70–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lewontin on metaphors of development, Lewontin, R. C. (2000). The Triple Helix: Gene, Organism, and Environment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 5, 6, 10–13.Google Scholar

On epigenesis and preformationism: Maienschein, J. (2017). Epigenesis and preformationism. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (spring 2017 edition), Edward N. Zalta (Ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/epigenesis.Google Scholar

Alternative interpretation of the blueprint metaphor and related studies: Condit, C. M. (1999). The Meanings of the Gene: Public Debates about Human Heredity. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, pp. 166–167; Parrott, R., and Smith, R. A. (2014). Defining genes using “blueprint” versus “instruction” metaphors: effects for genetic determinism, response efficacy, and perceived control. Health Communication, 29, 137–146.Google Scholar

For a clear and readable account of human development, on which my own account is also based: Davies, J. A. (2014). Life Unfolding: How the Human Body Creates Itself. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 38–40, 192–193, 251–252.Google Scholar

On the origami metaphor: Wolpert, L. (2011). Developmental Biology: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 11.Google Scholar

On Treacher–Collins syndrome: Vincent, M., Geneviève, D., Ostertag, A., et al. (2016). Treacher Collins syndrome: a clinical and molecular study based on a large series of patients. Genetics in Medicine, 18(1), 49–56.Google Scholar

On Achillea millefolium plants: Núñez-Farfán, J., and Schlichting, C. D. (2001). Evolution in changing environments: the “synthetic” work of Clausen, Keck, and Hiesey. Quarterly Review of Biology, 76(4), 433–457.Google Scholar

On developmental plasticity and robustness: Bateson, P., and Gluckman, P. (2011). Plasticity, Robustness, Development and Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

On thigmomorphogenesis: Pigliucci, M. (2005). Evolution of phenotypic plasticity: where are we going now? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 20(9), 481–486.Google Scholar

On the SRY gene: Jäger, R. J., Anvret, M., Hall, K., and Scherer, G. (1990). A human XY female with a frameshift mutation in the candidate testis-determining gene SRY. Nature, 348, 452–454;Google ScholarGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar

On Francis Galton’s research on twins: Burbridge, D. (2001). Francis Galton on twins, heredity and social class. The British Journal for the History of Science, 34(3), 323–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

On the Jensen-Lewontin debate: Jensen, A. R. (1969). How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement? Harvard Educational Review, 39, 1–123; Lewontin, R. C. (1970). Race and intelligence. Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 26(3), 2–8; Tabery, J. (2014). Beyond Versus: The Struggle to Understand the Interaction of Nature and Nurture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Cattle example of heritability: Slack, J. (2014). Genes: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 75.Google Scholar

Men laying bricks example of heritability: Lewontin, R. C. (1974). The analysis of variance and the analysis of causes. American Journal of Human Genetics, 26, 400–411.Google Scholar

Snowfall example of heritability: Moore, D. S. (2002). The Dependent Gene: The Fallacy of “Nature vs. Nurture.” New York: Times Books/Henry Holt and Company, p. 41.Google Scholar

Drummers example: Keller, E. F. (2010). The Mirage of a Space between Nature and Nurture. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, pp. 34–36.Google Scholar

On the concept of difference-maker: Waters, C. K. (2007). Causes that make a difference. Journal of Philosophy, 104, 551–579.Google Scholar

On lactose intolerance: Gannett, L. (1999). What’s in a cause? The pragmatic dimensions of genetic explanations. Biology and Philosophy, 14, 349–373.Google Scholar

For examples of the many-to-many relation: Frazer, K. A., Murray, S. S., Schork, N. J., and Topol, E. J. (2009). Human genetic variation and its contribution to complex traits. Nature Reviews Genetics, 10(4), 241–251.Google Scholar

On knockout genes in mice: Morange, M. (2002). The Misunderstood Gene. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press; Hall, B., Limaye, A., and Kulkarni, A. B. (2009). Overview: generation of gene knockout mice. Current Protocols in Cell Biology, Unit 19– 12, 11–17; Mak, T. W., Penninger, J. M., and Ohashi, P. S. (2001). Knockout mice: a paradigm shift in modern immunology. Nature Reviews Immunology, 1(1), 11–19.Google Scholar

On human knockouts: Alkuraya, F. S. (2015). Human knockout research: new horizons and opportunities. Trends in Genetics, 31(2), 108–115;Google ScholarGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar

On gene pleiotropy: Solovieff, N., Cotsapas, C., Lee, P. H., Purcell, S. M., and Smoller, J. W. (2013). Pleiotropy in complex traits: challenges and strategies. Nature Reviews Genetics, 14(7), 483–495.Google Scholar

On epigenetics: Moore, D. S. (2015). The Developing Genome: An Introduction to Behavioral Epigenetics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Carey, N. (2012). The Epigenetics Revolution: How Modern Biology Is Rewriting Our Understanding of Genetics, Disease, and Inheritance. New York: Columbia University Press; Francis, R. C. (2011). Epigenetics: How Environment Shapes our Genes. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar

Study with twins: Fraga, M. F., Ballestar, E., Paz, M. F., et al. (2005). Epigenetic differences arise during the lifetime of monozygotic twins. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(30), 10604–10609.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

On the Dutch famine: de Rooij, S., Wouters, H., Yonker, J., et al. (2010). Prenatal undernutrition and cognitive function in late adulthood. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 16881–16886;Google ScholarGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar

Quotations from Collins: Collins, F. S. (2010). The Language of Life: DNA and the Revolution in Personalized Medicine. New York: Harper, pp. xxiii–xxiv, 278–279.Google Scholar

On genomic medicine and the related questions: Annas, G. J., and Elias, S. (2015). Genomic Messages: How the Evolving Science of Genetics Affects Our Health, Families, and Future. New York: HarperOne; Collins, F. S., and Varmus, H. (2015). A new initiative on precision medicine. New England Journal of Medicine, 372, 793–795; Lander, E. S. (2015). Cutting the Gordian helix: regulating genomic testing in the era of precision medicine. New England Journal of Medicine, 372(13), 1185–1186.Google Scholar

Estimation of relative risk for five individuals: Ng, P. C., Murray, S. S., Levy, S., and Venter, J. C. (2009). An agenda for personalized medicine. Nature, 461(7265), 724–726.Google Scholar

Comparison of 23andMe, deCODEme, and Navigenics: Kalf, R. R., Mihaescu, R., Kundu, S., et al. (2014). Variations in predicted risks in personal genome testing for common complex diseases. Genetics in Medicine, 16(1), 85–91.Google Scholar

Poll among experts: Schulte, J., Rothaus, C. S., Adler, J. N., and Phimister, E. G. (2014). Screening an asymptomatic person for genetic risk: polling results. New England Journal of Medicine, 371(20), 2442–2445.Google Scholar

For the 2013 decision of the FDA regarding 23andMe: Annas, G. J., and Elias, S. (2014). 23andMe and the FDA. New England Journal of Medicine, 370(11), 985–988;Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

For the 2018 decision of the FDA regarding 23andMe: Gill, J., Obley, A. J., and Prasad, V. (2018). Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: the implications of the US FDA’s first marketing authorization for BRCA mutation testing. Journal of the American Medical Association, 319(23), 2377–2378.Google Scholar

Study of raw DNA data provided by companies performing genetic tests: Tandy-Connor, S., Guiltinan, J., Krempely, K., et al. (2018). False-positive results released by direct-to-consumer genetic tests highlight the importance of clinical confirmation testing for appropriate patient care. Genetics in Medicine, 20(12), 1515.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

On polygenic risk scores: Torkamani, A., Wineinger, N. E., and Topol, E. J. (2018). The personal and clinical utility of polygenic risk scores. Nature Reviews Genetics, 19(9), 581–590;Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

GeneScreen study: Butterfield, R. M., Evans, J. P., Rini, C., et al. (2019). Returning negative results to individuals in a genomic screening program: lessons learned. Genetics in Medicine, 21(2), 409–416.Google Scholar

On the role of metaphors in science: Lakoff, G., and Johnson, M. (2003/1980). Metaphors we Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; Brown, T. L. (2003). Making Truth: Metaphor in Science. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press; Reynolds, A. S. (2018). The Third Lens: Metaphor and the Creation of Modern Cell Biology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; Keller, E. F. (1995). Refiguring Life: Metaphors of Twentieth Century Biology. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar

Sources of quotations: Avise, J. C. (2001). Evolving genomic metaphors: a new look at the language of DNA. Science, 294(5540), 86–87, p. 86; Pollack, R. (1995). Signs of Life: The Language and Meanings of DNA. London: Penguin, p. 90.Google Scholar

On gene editing and CRISPR: Lander, E. S. (2016). The heroes of CRISPR. Cell, 164(1–2), 18–28; Kobuzek, J. (2016). Modern Prometheus: Editing the Human Genome with CRISPR-CAS9. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Parrington, J. (2016). Redesigning Life: How Genome Editing Will Transform the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Doudna, J., and Sternberng, S. (2017). A Crack in Creation: The New Power to Control Evolution. London: Vintage (quotations on pp. xv, xvii); Carey, N. (2019). Hacking the Code of Life: How Gene Editing Will Rewrite our Futures. London: Icon Books.Google Scholar

On the “gene editing” and “book of life” metaphors: Nerlich, B. “The book of life: reading, writing and editing,” https://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2015/11/22/the-book-of-life-reading-writing-and-editing (accessed June 29, 2020);Google ScholarGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar

Study on “editing” and “targeting” metaphors in articles: O’Keefe, M., Perrault, S., Halpern, J., et al. (2015). “Editing” genes: a case study about how language matters in bioethics. The American Journal of Bioethics, 15(12), 3–10.Google Scholar

Report: National Academy of Sciences (2020). Heritable Human Genome Editing. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar

Studies on problems of genome editing: www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01906-4?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_campaign=6441803628-briefing-dy-20200626&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c9dfd39373-6441803628-42984447 (accessed June 26, 2020).Google Scholar

For a review of genome editing methods: Anzalone, A. V., Koblan, L. W., and Liu, D. R. (2020). Genome editing with CRISPR–Cas nucleases, base editors, transposases and prime editors. Nature Biotechnology, 38, 824–844.Google Scholar

On genomic prediction: https://genomicprediction.com/faqs/#faq-7.2 (accessed June 29, 2020).Google Scholar

Interview with Stephen Hsu: www.genengnews.com/insights/polygenic-risk-scores-and-genomic-prediction-qa-with-stephen-hsu (accessed June 29, 2020).Google Scholar

For the criticisms toward the initial announcement of Genomic Prediction: www.technologyreview.com/2019/11/08/132018/polygenic-score-ivf-embryo-dna-tests-genomic-prediction-gattaca (accessed June 29, 2020); http://ewanbirney.com/2019/11/why-using-genetic-risk-scores-on-embryos-is-wrong.html (accessed June 29, 2020).Google Scholar

Study of PRS of height and IQ: Karavani, E., Zuk, O., Zeevi, D., et al. (2019). Screening human embryos for polygenic traits has limited utility. Cell, 179(6), 1424–1435.Google Scholar

Confusing “the methodological limitations of experiments” with “the correct explanations of phenomena”: Lewontin, R. C. (2000). The Triple Helix: Gene, Organism, and Environment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 98–99.Google Scholar

A recent analysis of the literature on geneticization: Weiner, K., Martin, P., Richards, M., and Tutton, R. (2017). Have we seen the geneticisation of society? Expectations and evidence. Sociology of Health & Illness, 39(7), 989–1004.Google Scholar