CYIL 2012

“SUCCEEDING GENERATIONS“ IN THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER… The above findings, published in the “ The Journal of Genetic Psychology ”, prompt now a return to the earlier observation involving the genes’ individual relevance to the (anti)social behaviour and learning outcomes. The earlier negative experience with eugenics must have led the experts of the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) to denounce the role of genes in prompting violence, an idea still resounding elsewhere. 47 In its 1986 Seville Statement on Violence by anthropologists, biologists, ethnologists, neuropsychologists, psychiatrists, psychologists and sociologists, UNESCO declared that: “it is scientifically incorrect to say that war or any other violent behaviour is genetically programmed into our human nature. While genes are involved at all levels of nervous system function, they provide a developmental potential that can be actualized only in conjunction with the ecological and social environment. While individuals vary in their predispositions to be affected by their experience, it is the interaction between their genetic endowment and conditions of nurturance that determines their personalities. Except for rare pathologies, the genes do not produce individuals necessarily predisposed to violence. Neither do they determine the opposite. While genes are co-involved in establishing our behavioural capacities, they do not by themselves specify the outcome” . 48 The now dominant view on the biological and social influences on “succeeding generations”, so far, leaves little space for explaining them in genetic terms, as clarified by the following two criminological statements: “The most significant criticism of biosocial theory has been the lack of adequate empirical testing. In most research efforts sample sizes are small and nonrepresentative”, 49 and “The extent to which a biosocial perspective can inform public policy,… is not yet well known and likely will not be known for some time. Contemporary biosocial research is still in its infancy and at this point we are still trying to uncover the complex ways in which environmental factors and genetics work to produce antisocial behaviours. Even so, there is emerging evidence indicating that the biosocial perspective can be quite effective for creating programs that reduce nd prevent crime and delinquency”. 50 Nonetheless, in a cell biology book reviewing that emerging evidence, the little space left for the influence of individual genes on succeeding generations’ (anti) social behaviour and learning outcomes is reinterpreted: “[G]enes are important-but their importance is only realized through the influence of conscious parenting and the richness 47 For a review and critique of neo-Darwinist interpretation of the biosocial sources of violence and warfare, see: Malešević, S., The Sociology of War and Violence , Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 2010, pp. 56-58. 48 http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.php-URL_ID=3247&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_ SECTION=201.html. 49 Siegel, L. J., Criminology: Theories, Patterns, and Typologies , 11 th edition, Wadsworth, Belmont, CA, 2011, p. 156. 50 Beaver, K. M &, Walsh, A. (eds.), The Ashgate Research Companion to Biosocial Theories of Crime, Ashgate, 2011, p. 14.

169