Emergence versus Reductionism in Science Publications

Just a few years after the U.S. government's decision to fully fund the Human Genome Project (HGP) in 1990, an important harbinger of things to come was the publication of the controversial 1994 book <i>The Bell Curve</i> by Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray. The authors' most controversial claim was that human intelligence was at least 60 percent genetic. At that time, the national advisory group to the HGP, the Ethical Legal and Social Implications committee (ELSI) requested that the <i>American Journal of Human Genetics</i> critique and respond to the authors' claim. The editorial board of the journal refused on the grounds that "this book was about behavioral genetics" while the HGP was about human molecular genetics. Members of ELSI committee argued vigorously that this distinction between different forums and platforms used to explain human genetic variation would soon collapse and merge. However, it was only a matter of time before behavioral geneticists would claim the legitimacy of being under the mantle of molecular genetics. In this address, I show just how prescient the ELSI group had been. Much of the answer lies in the reward structure for science publications that strongly favor reductionism versus emergence.