Sanford School of Public Policy
Duke University
Publications of Evan Charney :chronological alphabetical combined listing:
We've launched a new site so please go to People & Research for current information on our faculty and staff.
%% Journal Articles
@article{fds321758,
Author = {Charney, E},
Title = {Genes, behavior, and behavior genetics.},
Journal = {Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews. Cognitive
Science},
Volume = {8},
Number = {1-2},
Year = {2017},
Month = {January},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1405},
Abstract = {According to the 'first law' of behavior genetics, 'All
human behavioral traits are heritable.' Accepting the
validity of this first law and employing statistical
methods, researchers within psychology, sociology, political
science, economics, and business claim to have demonstrated
that all the behaviors studied by their disciplines are
heritable-no matter how culturally specific these behaviors
appear to be. Further, in many cases they claim to have
identified specific genes that play a role in those
behaviors. The validity of behavior genetics as a discipline
depends upon the validity of the research methods used to
justify such claims. It also depends, foundationally, upon
certain key assumptions concerning the relationship between
genotype (one's specific DNA sequences) and phenotype (any
and all observable traits or characteristics). In this
article, I examine-and find serious flaws with-both the
methodologies of behavior genetics and the underlying
assumptions concerning the genotype-phenotype relationship.
WIREs Cogn Sci 2017, 8:e1405. doi: 10.1002/wcs.1405 For
further resources related to this article, please visit the
WIREs website.},
Doi = {10.1002/wcs.1405},
Key = {fds321758}
}
@article{fds317720,
Author = {Charney, E},
Title = {Liberal bias and the five-factor model.},
Journal = {Behavioral and Brain Sciences},
Volume = {38},
Pages = {e139},
Year = {2015},
Month = {January},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x14001174},
Abstract = {Duarte et al. draw attention to the "embedding of liberal
values and methods" in social psychological research. They
note how these biases are often invisible to the researchers
themselves. The authors themselves fall prey to these
"invisible biases" by utilizing the five-factor model of
personality and the trait of openness to experience as one
possible explanation for the under-representation of
political conservatives in social psychology. I show that
the manner in which the trait of openness to experience is
conceptualized and measured is a particularly blatant
example of the very liberal bias the authors
decry.},
Doi = {10.1017/s0140525x14001174},
Key = {fds317720}
}
@article{fds269914,
Author = {Charney, E},
Title = {Conservatives, liberals, and "the negative".},
Journal = {Behavioral and Brain Sciences},
Volume = {37},
Number = {3},
Pages = {310-311},
Year = {2014},
Month = {June},
ISSN = {0140-525X},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x13002549},
Abstract = {The authors connect conservatism with aversion to negativity
via the tendentious use of the language of threats to
characterize conservatism, but not liberalism. Their
reliance upon an objective conception of the negative
ignores the fact that much of the disagreement between
liberals and conservatives is over whether or not one and
the same state of affairs is negative or
positive.},
Doi = {10.1017/s0140525x13002549},
Key = {fds269914}
}
@article{fds317721,
Author = {Charney, E},
Title = {Behavioural Genetics in the Postgenomics
Era},
Publisher = {JOHN WILEY & SONS LTD},
Year = {2014},
Month = {January},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470015902.a0025250},
Abstract = {There is growing evidence that the complexity of higher
organisms does not correlate with the ‘complexity’ of
the genome (the human genome contains fewer protein coding
genes than corn, and many genes are preserved across
species). Rather, complexity is associated with the
complexity of the pathways and processes whereby the cell
utilises the deoxyribonucleic acid molecule, and much else,
in the process of phenotype formation. These pro- cesses
include the activity of the epigenome, noncoding ribonucleic
acids, alternative splicing and post-transla- tional
modifications. Not accidentally, all of these pro- cesses
appear to be of particular importance for the human brain,
the most complex organ in nature. Because these processes
can be highly environmentally reactive, they are a key to
understanding behavioural plasticity and highlight the
importance of the developmental process in explaining
behavioural outcomes.},
Doi = {10.1002/9780470015902.a0025250},
Key = {fds317721}
}
@article{fds219098,
Author = {E. Charney},
Title = {Can Tasks be Inherently Boring? Commentary on Robert
Kurzban, Angela Duckworth, Joseph W. Kable, and Justus
Myers, “An Opportunity Cost Model of Subjective Effort and
Task Performance"},
Journal = {Behavioral and Brain Sciences},
Volume = {36},
Number = {6},
Pages = {684},
Year = {2013},
Month = {December},
Abstract = {Kurzban et al. argue that the experiences of “effort,”
“boredom,” and “fatigue” are indications that the
costs of a task outweigh its benefits. Reducing the costs of
tasks to “opportunity costs” has the effect of rendering
tasks costless and of denying that they can be inherently
boring or tedious, something that “vigilance tasks” were
intentionally designed to be.},
Key = {fds219098}
}
@article{fds269915,
Author = {Charney, E},
Title = {Can tasks be inherently boring?},
Journal = {Behavioral and Brain Sciences},
Volume = {36},
Number = {6},
Pages = {684},
Year = {2013},
Month = {December},
url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24304781},
Abstract = {Kurzban et al. argue that the experiences of "effort,"
"boredom," and "fatigue" are indications that the costs of a
task outweigh its benefits. Reducing the costs of tasks to
"opportunity costs" has the effect of rendering tasks
costless and of denying that they can be inherently boring
or tedious, something that "vigilance tasks" were
intentionally designed to be.},
Doi = {10.1017/s0140525x13000964},
Key = {fds269915}
}
@article{fds217523,
Author = {E. Charney},
Title = {Politics and Biology},
Journal = {Perspectives on Politics},
Volume = {11},
Number = {2},
Pages = {588-61},
Year = {2013},
Month = {June},
url = {https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxhbtIT-dOvENDNJSkVSLWR1Z2s/edit?usp=sharing},
Doi = {10.1017/S1537592713000893},
Key = {fds217523}
}
@article{fds317722,
Author = {Alford, CF},
Title = {Politics and Biology},
Journal = {Perspectives on Politics},
Volume = {11},
Number = {2},
Pages = {549-551},
Publisher = {Cambridge University Press (CUP)},
Year = {2013},
Month = {June},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1537592713000182},
Abstract = {<jats:p><jats:bold>Man Is by Nature a Political Animal:
Evolution, Biology, and Politics.</jats:bold> Edited by
Peter K. Hatemi and Rose McDermott. Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press, 2011. 352p. $80.00 cloth, $27.50
paper.</jats:p><jats:p>Peter K. Hatemi and Rose McDermott's
<jats:italic>Man Is by Nature a Political
Animal</jats:italic> brings together some of the most
important social scientists working at the intersection of
political science, psychology, biology, and cognitive
neuroscience. Given recent advances in cognitive
neuroscience and given the proliferation of work in
political science that draws on these advances, we have
decided to invite a range of political scientists to comment
on the promise and the limits of this line of inquiry. What
can scientific developments in psychology, biology, and
neuroscience tell us about “human nature”? Can these
discourses reckon with the variation in time and space that
has traditionally been at the heart of political science,
perhaps even going back to the classic text from which
Hatemi and McDermott derive their title, Aristotle's
<jats:italic>Politics</jats:italic>?—Jeffrey C. Isaac,
Editor</jats:p>},
Doi = {10.1017/s1537592713000182},
Key = {fds317722}
}
@article{fds269917,
Author = {Charney, E},
Title = {Cytoplasmic inheritance redux.},
Journal = {Advances in Child Development and Behavior},
Volume = {44},
Pages = {225-255},
Year = {2013},
Month = {January},
ISSN = {0065-2407},
url = {https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxhbtIT-dOvEZXR1Y2lUckJYWWc/edit?usp=sharing},
Keywords = {Cytoplasmic Inheritance • Oocyte • Maternal Effect
Genes • Epigenetics • Histone Modification •
DNA Methylation • Imprinting • Noncoding RNAs
• X-chromosome Inactivation • Cytoplasmic
Organelles • Mitochondria • Nucleoli •
Assisted Reproductive Technology • IVF and Epigenetics
• The Oviductal Environment},
Abstract = {Since the early twentieth century, inheritance was seen as
the inheritance of genes. Concurrent with the acceptance of
the genetic theory of inheritance was the rejection of the
idea that the cytoplasm of the oocyte could also play a role
in inheritance and a corresponding devaluation of embryology
as a discipline critical for understanding human
development. Development, and variation in development, came
to be viewed solely as matters of genetic inheritance and
genetic variation. We now know that inheritance is a matter
of both genetic and cytoplasmic inheritance. A growing
awareness of the centrality of the cytoplasm in explaining
both human development and phenotypic variation has been
promoted by two contemporaneous developments: the continuing
elaboration of the molecular mechanisms of epigenetics and
the global rise of artificial reproductive technologies. I
review recent developments in the ongoing elaboration of the
role of the cytoplasm in human inheritance and
development.},
Doi = {10.1016/b978-0-12-397947-6.00008-8},
Key = {fds269917}
}
@article{fds269918,
Author = {Charney, E and English, W},
Title = {Genopolitics and the science of genetics},
Journal = {American Political Science Review},
Volume = {107},
Number = {2},
Pages = {382-395},
Publisher = {Cambridge University Press (CUP)},
Year = {2013},
Month = {January},
ISSN = {0003-0554},
url = {https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxhbtIT-dOvEZm9SY2tvMlZhaW8/edit?usp=sharing},
Abstract = {In an earlier article we challenged the findings of Fowler
and Dawes (FD) that two genes predict voter turnout as part
of a more general critique of genopolitics. FD now
acknowledge that their finding of a significant direct
association between MAOA and voting was incorrect, but claim
to have replicated their finding of an indirect association
between 5HTT, self-reported church attendance, and
self-reported voting. We show that this finding is likely
driven by population stratification and omitted variable
bias. We then explain why, from the standpoints of genetics,
neuroscience, and evolutionary biology, genopolitics is a
fundamentally misguided undertaking; we also respond to FD's
charge that some of our previous statements concerning
genetics are highly misleading, extremely disingenuous, and
even incorrect. We show that their criticisms demonstrate a
lack of awareness of some basic principles in genetics and
of discoveries in molecular genetics over the past 50 years.
Copyright © 2013 American Political Science
Association.},
Doi = {10.1017/S0003055413000099},
Key = {fds269918}
}
@article{fds219099,
Author = {E. Charney},
Title = {Conservatives, liberals, and "the negative": Commentary on
John R. Hibbing, Kevin B. Smith, and John R. Alford,
"Differences in Negativity Bias Underlie Variations in
Political Ideology"},
Journal = {Behavioral and Brain Sciences},
Year = {2013},
Key = {fds219099}
}
@article{fds219100,
Author = {E. Charney},
Title = {Behavioural genetics in the postgenomic era},
Journal = {eLS, John Wiley & Sons},
Year = {2013},
Abstract = {There is growing evidence that the complexity of higher
organisms does not correlate with the “complexity” of
the genome (the human genome contains fewer protein coding
genes than corn, and many genes are preserved across
species). Rather, complexity is associated with the
complexity of the pathways and processes whereby the cell
utilizes the DNA molecule, and much else, in the process of
phenotype formation. These processes include the activity of
the epigenome, non-coding RNAs, alternative splicing, and
post-translational modifications. Not accidentally, all of
these processes appear to be of particular importance for
the human brain, the most complex organ in nature. Because
these processes can be highly environmentally reactive, they
are a key to understanding behavioural plasticity and
highlight the importance of the developmental process in
explaining behavioural outcomes.},
Key = {fds219100}
}
@article{fds269924,
Author = {Charney, E},
Title = {Behavior Genetics and Post Genomics},
Journal = {Behavioral and Brain Sciences},
Volume = {35},
Number = {6},
Pages = {1-80},
Year = {2012},
Month = {December},
url = {https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BxhbtIT-dOvEVFBBTEs5dEZMc2c},
Keywords = {genetics, behavior genetics, heritability, epigenetics, twin
studies, gene association studies, developmental biology,
phenotypic plasticity, evolutionary developmental biology,
evo-devo, maternal effects, stochasticity},
Abstract = {The science of genetics is undergoing a paradigm shift.
Recent discoveries, including the activity of
retrotransposons, the extent of copy number variations,
somatic and chromosomal mosaicism, and the nature of the
epigenome as a regulator of DNA expressivity, are
challenging a series of dogmas concerning the nature of the
genome and the relationship between genotype and phenotype.
DNA, once held to be the unchanging template of heredity,
now appears subject to a good deal of environmental change;
considered to be identical in all cells and tissues of the
body, there is growing evidence that somatic mosaicism is
the normal human condition; and treated as the sole
biological agent of heritability, we now know that the
epigenome, which regulates gene expressivity, can be
inherited via the germline. These developments are
particularly significant for behavior genetics for at least
three reasons: First, these phenomena appear to be
particularly prevalent in the human brain, and likely are
involved in much of human behavior; second, they have
important implications for the validity of heritability and
gene association studies, the methodologies that largely
define the discipline of behavior genetics; and third, they
appear to play a critical role in development during the
perinatal period, and in enabling phenotypic plasticity in
offspring in particular. I examine one of the central claims
to emerge from the use of heritability studies in the
behavioral sciences, the principle of “minimal shared
maternal effects,” in light of the growing awareness that
the maternal perinatal environment is a critical venue for
the exercise of adaptive phenotypic plasticity. This
consideration has important implications for both
developmental and evolutionary biology},
Doi = {10.1017/S0140525X11002226},
Key = {fds269924}
}
@article{fds269923,
Author = {Chamey, E and English, W},
Title = {The voting gene.},
Journal = {Scientific American},
Volume = {307},
Number = {5},
Pages = {14},
Year = {2012},
Month = {November},
ISSN = {0036-8733},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1112-14},
Doi = {10.1038/scientificamerican1112-14},
Key = {fds269923}
}
@article{fds269921,
Author = {Charney, E},
Title = {Author’s response: Humans, fruit flies, and
automatons.},
Journal = {Behavioral and Brain Sciences},
Volume = {35},
Number = {5},
Pages = {381-410},
Publisher = {Cambridge University Press (CUP)},
Year = {2012},
Month = {October},
ISSN = {0140-525X},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12001501},
Abstract = {My response is divided into four sections: (1) is devoted to
a potpourri of commentaries that are essentially in
agreement with the substance of my target article (with one
exception); in (2) I address, in response to one of the
commentaries, several issues relating to the use of
candidate gene association studies in behavior genetics (in
particular those proposing a specific G × E interaction);
in (3) I provide a detailed response to several defenses of
the twin study methodology; and in (4) I conclude with
several reflections on that methodology and the conception
of human nature it has fostered.},
Doi = {10.1017/S0140525X12001501},
Key = {fds269921}
}
@article{fds269922,
Author = {Charney, E},
Title = {Behavior genetics and postgenomics.},
Journal = {Behavioral and Brain Sciences},
Volume = {35},
Number = {5},
Pages = {331-358},
Year = {2012},
Month = {October},
url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23095378},
Abstract = {The science of genetics is undergoing a paradigm shift.
Recent discoveries, including the activity of
retrotransposons, the extent of copy number variations,
somatic and chromosomal mosaicism, and the nature of the
epigenome as a regulator of DNA expressivity, are
challenging a series of dogmas concerning the nature of the
genome and the relationship between genotype and phenotype.
According to three widely held dogmas, DNA is the unchanging
template of heredity, is identical in all the cells and
tissues of the body, and is the sole agent of inheritance.
Rather than being an unchanging template, DNA appears
subject to a good deal of environmentally induced change.
Instead of identical DNA in all the cells of the body,
somatic mosaicism appears to be the normal human condition.
And DNA can no longer be considered the sole agent of
inheritance. We now know that the epigenome, which regulates
gene expressivity, can be inherited via the germline. These
developments are particularly significant for behavior
genetics for at least three reasons: First, epigenetic
regulation, DNA variability, and somatic mosaicism appear to
be particularly prevalent in the human brain and probably
are involved in much of human behavior; second, they have
important implications for the validity of heritability and
gene association studies, the methodologies that largely
define the discipline of behavior genetics; and third, they
appear to play a critical role in development during the
perinatal period and, in particular, in enabling phenotypic
plasticity in offspring. I examine one of the central claims
to emerge from the use of heritability studies in the
behavioral sciences, the principle of minimal shared
maternal effects, in light of the growing awareness that the
maternal perinatal environment is a critical venue for the
exercise of adaptive phenotypic plasticity. This
consideration has important implications for both
developmental and evolutionary biology.},
Doi = {10.1017/s0140525x11002226},
Key = {fds269922}
}
@article{fds269925,
Author = {Charney, E and English, W},
Title = {Candidate genes and political behavior},
Journal = {American Political Science Review},
Volume = {106},
Number = {1},
Pages = {1-34},
Publisher = {Cambridge University Press (CUP)},
Year = {2012},
Month = {February},
ISSN = {0003-0554},
url = {https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BxhbtIT-dOvESm51d1BlNnRTTHFQcFNaWlNMRUtRdw},
Abstract = {Political scientists are making increasing use of the
methodologies of behavior genetics in an attempt to uncover
whether or not political behavior is heritable, as well as
the specific genotypes that might act as predisposing
factors for-or predictors of-political henotypes. Noteworthy
among the latter are a series of candidate gene association
studies in which researchers claim to have discovered one or
two common genetic variants that predict such behaviors as
voting and political orientation. We critically examine the
candidate gene association study methodology by considering,
as a representative example, the recent study by Fowler and
Dawes according to which two genes predict voter turnout. In
addition to demonstrating, on the basis of the data set
employed by Fowler and Dawes, that two genes do not predict
voter turnout, we consider a number of difficulties, both
methodological and genetic, that beset the use of gene
association studies, both candidate and genome-wide, in the
social and behavioral sciences. © 2012 American Political
Science Association.},
Doi = {10.1017/S0003055411000554},
Key = {fds269925}
}
@article{fds269916,
Author = {Charney, E},
Title = {Political science and behavior genetics: Rethinking
foundational assumptions},
Journal = {Research in Biopolitics},
Volume = {9},
Pages = {115-138},
Booktitle = {Biology and Politics: The Cutting Edge},
Publisher = {Emerald Group Publishing Limited},
Year = {2011},
Month = {December},
ISSN = {2042-9940},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S2042-9940(2011)0000009007},
Doi = {10.1108/S2042-9940(2011)0000009007},
Key = {fds269916}
}
@article{fds269926,
Author = {Charney, E},
Title = {Physiology may not be (political) destiny},
Journal = {Psycrit},
Year = {2009},
Month = {February},
url = {http://tinyurl.com/politics-reflexes},
Abstract = {Oxley et al. (2008) translate an eyeblink and a slight
sweat, provoked by different kinds of pictures, into a
political position. Science magazine apparently raised no
objections. Charney points out that both eye blinks and GSR
changes can be interpreted in very many ways. Oxley et
al.’s grand conclusions leave their modest data well
behind.},
Key = {fds269926}
}
@article{fds269927,
Author = {Charney, E},
Title = {Politics, genetics, and "greedy reductionism"},
Journal = {Perspectives on Politics},
Volume = {6},
Number = {2},
Pages = {337-343},
Publisher = {Cambridge University Press (CUP)},
Year = {2008},
Month = {June},
ISSN = {1537-5927},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1537592708080651},
Doi = {10.1017/S1537592708080651},
Key = {fds269927}
}
@article{fds269928,
Author = {Charney, E},
Title = {Genes and ideologies},
Journal = {Perspectives on Politics},
Volume = {6},
Number = {2},
Pages = {299-319},
Publisher = {Cambridge University Press (CUP)},
Year = {2008},
Month = {June},
ISSN = {1537-5927},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1537592708080626},
Abstract = {There is a trend among behavioral scientists to view ever
more complex attitudes or systems of belief as in some sense
genetically determined (or "heritable"). Consistent with
this trend is the recent article of Alford, Funk, and
Hibbing titled "Are Political Orientations Genetically
Transmitted?" in which the authors claim to have
demonstrated that when it comes to the transmission of
political ideologies, genes count for more than environment.
Their article has received an enormous amount of attention
among political scientists and in the popular press. I
critically evaluate the research technique on the basis of
which the authors' support their claims and argue that it
suffers from significant methodological flaws. Such flaws
notwithstanding, I demonstrate that the authors' data do not
clearly support their conclusions. I then question the
cogency, from an historical and theoretical perspective, of
proposing the existence of "liberal" and "conservative"
"phenotypes" and "genotypes." My argument has implications
beyond the findings of Alford, Funk, and Hibbing, and
applies to all studies that claim to have demonstrated the
heritability of complex and politically relevant attitudes.
© 2008 Copyright American Political Science
Association.},
Doi = {10.1017/S1537592708080626},
Key = {fds269928}
}
@article{fds317723,
Author = {Charney, E},
Title = {Why Deliberative Democracy?by Amy Gutmann and Dennis
Thompson},
Journal = {Political Science Quarterly},
Volume = {120},
Number = {2},
Pages = {310-311},
Publisher = {WILEY},
Year = {2005},
Month = {June},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-165x.2005.tb01361.x},
Doi = {10.1002/j.1538-165x.2005.tb01361.x},
Key = {fds317723}
}
@article{fds269929,
Author = {Charney, E},
Title = {Identity and liberal nationalism},
Journal = {American Political Science Review},
Volume = {97},
Number = {2},
Pages = {295-310},
Publisher = {Cambridge University Press (CUP)},
Year = {2003},
Month = {May},
ISSN = {0003-0554},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003055403000686},
Abstract = {A number of liberal defenders of nationalism argue that
cultural-national membership is a vital component of
individual identity. Notable among these liberal "identity
nationalists" is Will Kymlicka, who defends minority
national and cultural rights on the basis of the importance
of such membership for persons' sense of identity.
Kymlicka's conception of the liberal autonomous self,
however, is radically at odds with his views concerning the
importance of cultural-national membership. It also
privileges national identity in such a way as to lend
support to an extreme and illiberal form of nationalism, one
that bases the priority of national obligations on the
priority of national identity. By prioritizing national
identity as Kymlicka does, other nonnational sites of
identity formation, such as religious communities, may
receive inadequate protection in a pluralistic
nation-state.},
Doi = {10.1017/S0003055403000686},
Key = {fds269929}
}
@article{fds269919,
Author = {Charney, E},
Title = {Cultural interpretation and universal human rights: A
response to Daniel A. Bell},
Journal = {Political Theory},
Volume = {27},
Number = {6},
Pages = {840-848},
Publisher = {SAGE Publications},
Year = {1999},
Month = {January},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0090591799027006006},
Doi = {10.1177/0090591799027006006},
Key = {fds269919}
}
@article{fds269920,
Author = {Charney, E},
Title = {Political liberalism, deliberative democracy, and the public
sphere},
Journal = {American Political Science Review},
Volume = {92},
Number = {1},
Pages = {97-110},
Year = {1998},
ISSN = {0003-0554},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2585931},
Abstract = {Theorists of democracy emphasize the importance of a public
sphere, distinct from the apparatus of the state, where
citizens can freely associate, deliberate, and engage in
collective will formation. Discourse ethicists and
deliberative democrats locate the public sphere within civil
society and the manifold associations that comprise it. For
Seyla Benhabib, the public sphere is constituted by the
anonymous "public conversation" of civil society. By
contrast, John Rawls has a much more limited conception of
the public sphere. For Rawls, public reason, which
establishes norms for democratic discourse, applies to a
limited domain. I defend Rawls's view against the charge
that it depends upon an untenable distinction between the
public and nonpublic spheres. I argue that Rawls's more
limited "liberal" conception better guarantees the
heterogeneity of associational life in civil society. I then
argue that Rawls violates his own principles by partially
collapsing the public-nonpublic distinction with potentially
illiberal consequences.},
Doi = {10.2307/2585931},
Key = {fds269920}
}
%% Chapters in Books
@misc{fds219103,
Author = {E. Charney},
Title = {Genetics and the Life Course},
Booktitle = {Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral
Sciences},
Year = {2013},
Abstract = {A life course perspective is committed to the proposition
that from conception to death, all human outcomes are the
result of a continual interaction between the individual and
all of the environments that he or she inhabits at any given
point in time. Early development is a critical period, a
window of time during the life course when a given exposure
can have a critical or permanent influence on later
outcomes. But the impact of exposures upon outcomes does not
end at any specific point in time, inasmuch as life is a
continuing interactive and adaptive process. We now know
that what applies to human beings, also applies to their
genomes. The “outcome” of any gene at any given point in
time (whether or not it is used to transcribe a particular
protein, what form of that protein, and how much) is a
product of the interaction between the gene and the multiple
environments of which it is a part, which includes the
epigenome, the cell, the biological human, and the assorted
environments he or she occupies (e.g., geographical,
socio-economic, ethnic, etc.). Early life experiences can
permanently “reprogram” the epigenome and gene
transcription with life-long behavioral consequences. At the
same time, the epigenome as well as the genome continue to
be environmentally responsive throughout the life
course.},
Key = {fds219103}
}
@misc{fds217522,
Author = {E. Charney},
Title = {Gene Association Studies},
Booktitle = {Biotechnology in Our Lives},
Publisher = {Skyhorse},
Address = {New York, NY},
Editor = {Sheldon Krimsky and Jeremy Gruber},
Year = {2013},
Key = {fds217522}
}
@misc{fds52962,
Author = {E. Charney},
Title = {Political Ethics},
Booktitle = {International Encyclopedia of Political Science},
Publisher = {CQ Press},
Editor = {George T. Kurian},
Year = {2010},
Month = {January},
Key = {fds52962}
}
@misc{fds52961,
Author = {E. Charney},
Title = {Political Correctness; Faith-Based Initiatives; Flag
Desecration},
Booktitle = {Encyclopedia of the Culture Wars},
Publisher = {M.E. Sharpe},
Editor = {Roger Chapman},
Year = {2009},
Month = {December},
Key = {fds52961}
}
%% Book Reviews
@article{fds32290,
Author = {E. Charney},
Title = {Why Deliberative Democracy? by Amy Gutmann and Dennis
Thompson},
Journal = {Political Science Quarterly},
Year = {2005},
Key = {fds32290}
}
@article{fds32291,
Author = {E. Charney},
Title = {Restoring the Lost Constitution by Randy E.
Barnett},
Journal = {Perspectives on Politics},
Volume = {2},
Number = {3},
Year = {2004},
Month = {September},
Key = {fds32291}
}
@article{fds32292,
Author = {E. Charney},
Title = {Libertarianism Without Inequality by Michael
Otsuka},
Journal = {Perspectives on Politics},
Volume = {2},
Number = {3},
Year = {2004},
Month = {September},
Key = {fds32292}
}
@article{fds14343,
Author = {E. Charney},
Title = {Liberal Purposes by William Galston},
Journal = {Perspectives on Politics},
Volume = {1},
Number = {2},
Pages = {384-85},
Year = {2003},
Month = {June},
Key = {fds14343}
}
%% Op-eds
@misc{fds219097,
Author = {E. Charney},
Title = {Still Chasing Ghosts: A New Genetic Methodology Will Not
Find the “Missing Heritability”},
Journal = {Independent Science News},
Year = {2013},
Month = {September},
url = {http://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/still-chasing-ghosts-a-new-genetic-methodology-will-not-find-the-missing-heritability/},
Key = {fds219097}
}
@misc{fds153319,
Author = {E. Charney},
Title = {“Debunking the Threat-Sweat Thinking Theory”},
Journal = {Raleigh News and Observer},
Year = {2008},
Month = {September},
Key = {fds153319}
}
%% Book Chapter
@misc{fds317719,
Author = {Charney, E},
Title = {Genetics and the Life Course},
Booktitle = {Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral
Sciences},
Publisher = {John Wiley & Sons},
Year = {2015},
Month = {January},
Abstract = {A life-course perspective is committed to the proposition
that from conception to death, all human outcomes are the
result of a continual interaction between the indi- vidual
and all of the environments that he or she inhabits at any
given point in time. Early development is a critical period,
a window of time during the life course when a given
exposure can have a critical or permanent in uence on later
outcomes. But the impact of exposures upon outcomes does not
end at any speci c point in time, inasmuch as life is a
continuing interactive and adaptive process. We now know
that what applies to human beings also applies to their
genomes. The “outcome” of any gene at any given point in
time (whether or not it is used to transcribe a particular
protein, what form of that protein, and how much) is a
product of the interaction between the gene and the multiple
environments of which it is a part, which include the
epigenome, the cell, the biological human, and the assorted
environments he or she occupies (e.g., geographical,
socioeconomic, ethnic, etc.). Early life experiences can
permanently “reprogram” the epigenome and gene
transcription with life-long behavioral consequences. At the
same time, the epigenome as well as the genome continue to
be environmentally responsive throughout the life
course.},
Key = {fds317719}
}