Cited by 85Philosophy and History of ScienceEpigenetics and DNA MethylationPsychology of Development and Education

Reduction to Absurdity: Why Epigenetics Invalidates All Models Involving Genetic Reduction

Lerner, Richard M., Overton, Willis F.·2017·Human Development

Abstract

Embedding current research on epigenetics and development within a process-relational relational developmental systems (RDS) framework, we discuss the assertions of genetic reductionist models of human behavior and development. To better clarify the distinctions between process-relational RDS-based and Cartesian mechanistic genetic reductionist models, we recommend that the terms “interaction,” “mechanism,” and “trait” be replaced by terms such as “coaction,” “fusion,” “integration,” and “process” in depictions of process-relational RDS models. We argue that, in the context of epigenetics research, the propositions of genetic reductionist models lead to absurd claims about genetic causation, primarily because RDS-based, epigenetics research underscores the relative plasticity of the embodied coactions within the RDS. We discuss three ways in which genetic reductionist models survive in the face of egregious conceptual and methodological problems, and we make suggestions about the utility of epigenetics for applications aimed at enhancing the course of development for diverse individuals.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1159/000477995

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Nomothetic-oriented developmental theories have helped explain general features of children's thinking and behavior, but they do not explain widely observed departures from consistency, nor do they present robust conceptions of between-person variation in intra-individual change.

    “Although nomothetic-oriented developmental theories (e.g., stage conceptions proposed by Kohlberg, 1974 andPiaget, 1970) have helped to explain general (i.e., normative or average) features of children's thinking and behavior, they do not explain the widely observed departures from that consistency, nor do they present robust conceptions of between-person variation in intra-individual change”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lerner, R. M., & Overton, W. F.
Affiliations
  • Tufts University (US)
  • Temple University (US)
Venue
Human Development
Publisher
S. Karger AG
Published
2017
Volume
60
Issue
2-3
Pages
107-123
ISSN
  • 0018-716X (ISSN-L)
  • 1423-0054
OpenAlex
W2756473382
Cited by
85
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1
FWCI
48.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Human Development (publishedVersion)
Funders
John Templeton Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Epigenetics and DNA Methylation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Psychology of Development and Education
Keywords
epigenetics, genetic reductionism, relational developmental systems, genetic causality, developmental plasticity, human behavior, development (biology), conceptual terminology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review