# Has the nature-nurture issue been definitely settled in favor of nature? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 9, 2008, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-nature-nurture-issue-been-definitely-settled-in-favor-of-nature/467152 "2008-10-09T13:03:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2008, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-nature-nurture-issue-been-definitely-settled-in-favor-of-nature/467152/81 "2008-10-11T18:02:47Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Actually, just for kicks, I did a google search to find an actual quote from one of these alleged 1930’s sportswriters. Here’s one that I found. I don’t know if it’s representative, but it sure is interesting: That exact quote was in **Kimstu** ’s post. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2008, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-nature-nurture-issue-been-definitely-settled-in-favor-of-nature/467152/82 "2008-10-11T23:05:17Z")
> [@Chief Pedant](#): > > [L]et me return to the question: Is a given difference nature, or nurture? The evidence that the difference between a cohort that does well academically and a cohort that does poorly academically is genes and not nurture is consistent, overwhelming and unilateral. Then you should be able to provide a cite for it, as I requested in post #68. You seem content just to keep dodging the issue by saying that I’m asking for unreasonable standards of evidence, and apparently feeling that this absolves you from the need to provide any evidence at all. Instead, you just keep repeating your original claim. That’s not a convincing argument. As I said before, I don’t actually have a personal objection to the idea that different genetic populations might have measurable genetic-based differences in characteristics that we associate with intelligence. In fact, that idea doesn’t seem at all implausible to me. We perceive in genetically different populations all kinds of variations in a wide range of genetic traits, so why should brain functioning inherently be an exception? Nor do I have a personal objection to the idea that different “racial” groups also might have measurable genetic-based differences in characteristics that we associate with intelligence. That idea seems much more implausible, simply because race correlates so unreliably with actual genetic kinship. But I suppose it’s possible that we **might** discover a particular genetic pattern that really is shared by all those and only those in, say, a certain subgroup of “black”-looking people, and that that pattern might turn out to involve a gene that really does play a decisive role in determining intelligence. Sounds like a long shot, but I would never swear it couldn’t happen. What I do have a strong and passionate objection to are lame-ass, unsubstantiated attempts to argue that it has been conclusively SHOWN that different “racial” groups really do have measurable genetic-based differences in characteristics that we associate with intelligence. Sorry, but no studies have come anywhere close to showing any such thing, or even to tipping the scales in favor of such a position. To make that case convincingly, you’d have to achieve the following: 1. Find a group of people that rigorous DNA studies show to be more closely genetically linked to one another than they are to people outside the group. (As I noted above, “sub-Saharan Africans” appear not to qualify as such a group, because they actually have **more** genetic diversity among themselves than regional population groups anywhere else in the world. And as **tomndebb** noted, “American blacks” also don’t qualify, because they are to a large extent genetically mixed with population groups from much of the rest of the world. You still haven’t shown any way in which your use of the term “black” can be interpreted as a genetically meaningful category.) 2. Find a way of measuring intelligence that reflects **only** biologically-determined capabilities, and isn’t influenced in any way by cultural factors. (This is perhaps more doable than the requirement in (1), but it’s still a far from trivial task.) 3. Test the genetically-distinct group in (1) against other populations with different genetic backgrounds, rigorously controlling for **ALL** significant environmental and cultural factors, and find a statistically significant difference in measured intelligence. (This one’s far and away the biggest challenge of all.) Yes, I know that these requirements make it incredibly difficult to come up with a feasible design for such a study. Sorry, but that’s not my fault. That’s what it would take to demonstrate your claim honestly and convincingly. This isn’t closed-minded liberal dogma, this is merely plain old scientific rigor. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2008, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-nature-nurture-issue-been-definitely-settled-in-favor-of-nature/467152/83 "2008-10-11T23:11:31Z")
> [@Chief Pedant](#): > > I’ll just take a wild guess and say the black athlete was cut out of the selection pool early on, and I’ll take another wild guess that the Jewish athletes weren’t outperforming blacks elsewhere in the world. Then what’s your explanation for why Jewish athletes were systematically outperforming other non-black basketball players? Are you adopting the “simple, reasonable explanation” that Jews have better “sports genes”, at least for basketball, than other white athletes do? And if so, what’s happened to the Jewish dominance among white basketball players nowadays? Have post-WWII Jews somehow lost their “basketball gene”? ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2008, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-nature-nurture-issue-been-definitely-settled-in-favor-of-nature/467152/84 "2008-10-11T23:16:40Z")
> [@Lamia](#): > > That exact quote was in **Kimstu** ’s post. I agree. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2008, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-nature-nurture-issue-been-definitely-settled-in-favor-of-nature/467152/85 "2008-10-11T23:47:13Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > 1. Test the genetically-distinct group in (1) against other populations with different genetic backgrounds, rigorously controlling for **ALL** significant environmental and cultural factors, and find a statistically significant difference in measured intelligence. (This one’s far and away the biggest challenge of all.) > > Yes, I know that these requirements make it incredibly difficult to come up with a feasible design for such a study. Sorry, but that’s not my fault. That’s what it would take to demonstrate your claim honestly and convincingly. This isn’t closed-minded liberal dogma, this is merely plain old scientific rigor. I imagine that tobacco company executives would enthusiastically endorse your standards of “plain old scientific rigor” (I’m still challenging you to come up with epidemological evidence that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer.) ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2008, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-nature-nurture-issue-been-definitely-settled-in-favor-of-nature/467152/86 "2008-10-12T00:35:29Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > (I’m still challenging you to come up with epidemological evidence that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer.) You’re not making the analogy you think you are. Your cigarette/cancer argument is analogous to claiming that being a member of a group racially identified as “black” increases the risk of doing poorly on academic tests. Well, duh: of course it does. Everybody knows that. Studies clearly show that there is a statistically significant and persistent correlation between being racially identified as black and having lower performance on standardized tests. Of course, that certainly doesn’t mean that **every** black person will, on average, academically underperform members of other racial groups, just as not every cigarette smoker will get cancer and not every lung cancer victim is a smoker. But there certainly is **something** about the racial identity “black” that correlates, in a statistically non-negligible way, with relatively lower test performance. That is obvious and undeniable, no matter how liberal and “egalitarian” you are. What has not been shown to any even slightly convincing extent is that this effect can be attributed to GENETIC factors associated with “being black”. In fact, nobody has even made a convincing argument that just “being black” in some vaguely defined way constitutes a genetically meaningful category at all. Sub-Saharan Africans, as already noted _ad nauseam_, are a very genetically diverse group, and most of the Americans who are racially identified as “black” are even more diverse, having European, Native American, and/or other non-African ancestry as well. So, **what is the common genetic component** that you are arguing is shared by these genetically diverse people and putting them all at greater risk of academic underperformance? Why does it not increase the risk of academic underperformance for people who are racially identified as “white” although they have a significant proportion of “black” ancestry? Why does it not increase the risk of academic underperformance for children identified as “black” with adoptive parents identified as “white”? To sum up: Your argument for a causal link between some aspect of “blackness” and increased risk of academic underperformance is perfectly sound, and is indeed comparable to arguments for a causal link between cigarette smoking and cancer. But your argument for a link between some unspecified **GENETIC** component of “blackness” and increased risk of academic underperformance is, in the current state of the science, just plain bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2008, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-nature-nurture-issue-been-definitely-settled-in-favor-of-nature/467152/87 "2008-10-12T00:54:56Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > You’re not making the analogy you think you are. Your cigarette/cancer argument is analogous to claiming that being a member of a group racially identified as “black” increases the risk of doing poorly on academic tests. Actually it wasn’t my attention to make an analogy. If you think so, then you missed the point. The point was to pick an example to illustrate that you have set the bar absurdly high for evidence against the egalitarian hypothesis. You have set the bar so high that by your standard, there is no epidemological evidence that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer. Why do you think it is that you are unable to show me any epidemological evidence that smoking causes cancer? Surely a few google searches would uncover a few references to a few studies. The fact is that you can’t come up with any such evidence. By your standard, no such evidence exists. But look, if you think I somehow picked a bad “analogy” by using cigarettes and lung cancer, I’ll make it even easier for you: **I challenge you to show me epidemological evidence that X causes Y, where you get to pick any X and Y you like.** ---
**Author:** ![Belowjob2.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Belowjob2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Belowjob2.0)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2008, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-nature-nurture-issue-been-definitely-settled-in-favor-of-nature/467152/88 "2008-10-12T01:19:33Z")
> [@](#): > > To sum up: Your argument for a causal link between some aspect of “blackness” and increased risk of academic underperformance is perfectly sound, and is indeed comparable to arguments for a causal link between cigarette smoking and cancer. > > But your argument for a link between some unspecified GENETIC component of “blackness” and increased risk of academic underperformance is, in the current state of the science, just plain bullshit. Yes. > [@](#): > > The point was to pick an example to illustrate that you have set the bar absurdly high for evidence against the egalitarian hypothesis. I don’t believe anyone here has argued the egalitarian case. I certainly haven’t. What I’ve done is point out the massive flaws in the ““blacks” are inherently, genetically less intelligent than others” argument. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2008, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-nature-nurture-issue-been-definitely-settled-in-favor-of-nature/467152/89 "2008-10-12T01:32:39Z")
> [@Belowjob2.0](#): > > Yes. > I don’t believe anyone here has argued the egalitarian case. **Kimstu** seems to adhere to the egalitarian hypothesis. See post #59. At a minimum, his/her position seems to be that there is no evidence which undermines the egalitarian hypothesis. I have pointed out that his/her bar for such evidence is absurdly, ridiculously high. In any event, for the sake of clarity, one could define the “egalitarian black/white hypothesis” as the hypothesis that natural mental abilities are distributed perfectly evenly between the group of people known as “whites” and the group of people known as “blacks.” In that case, the earlier points I made about the egalitarian hypothesis would also apply to the egalitarian black/white hypothesis. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2008, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-nature-nurture-issue-been-definitely-settled-in-favor-of-nature/467152/90 "2008-10-12T02:08:22Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Is it now a proven fact that heredity plays a more important role than environment in determining individual human personality, psychological characteristics, and mental abilities? Because that’s what [John Derbyshire](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Derbyshire) is saying in [this](http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2U5YTJiMzhjNDNhZTcwZGYyZjcyMzQyZWNmNjJjN2E=) _National Review_ article referenced in the OP of [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=486994) Pit thread. Not true. This is what he said: > [@](#): > > Name any universal characteristic of human nature, including cognitive and personality characteristics. Of all the observed variation in that characteristic, about half is caused by genetic differences He’s saying its about even, and that’s been the common perception amongst researchers as I’ve read about the issue in recent years. > [@](#): > > The interesting thing is, though, he’s not saying it like a climate-change skeptic would stake out his position, defensively and acknowledging the majority of the scientific community supports the contrary position; rather, he is speaking of it as a fact which is well-established and noncontroversial among scientists in the relevant fields, but otherwise is not widely known purely because the extrascientific media and social-political environment discourage attention. Is that so, or is dude living on another planet from the rest of us? Well have you heard of the microchephalin gene ? A particular variant of this gene which controls brain size arose 37,000 years ago, outside of sub Saharan Africa, and presumably due to its superiority has rapidly spread to 70% of the human population. naturally, its not as prevalent amonst sub Saharan Africans. Or, the gene ASPM. Another brain size gene. A particular variant arose 5800 years ago, in or near Europe providing such an advantage to its host that now 30% of us carry it. This could be quite uncomfortable to talk about when considering the problem of racism. I’m uncomfortable about bringing it up. I must qualify the implications by stating that there is no evidence that brain size correlates with intelligence. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2008, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-nature-nurture-issue-been-definitely-settled-in-favor-of-nature/467152/91 "2008-10-12T02:10:48Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > I challenge you to show me epidemological evidence that X causes Y, where you get to pick any X and Y you like. This challenge is still irrelevant to the claim you’re trying to make in favor of genetic determinism as the cause of black/white test score differentials. Epidemiological evidence is based on **statistically significant correlation** between a particular factor (such as cigarette use) and a particular outcome (such as getting lung cancer). But no studies to date have done jack shit to show any statistically significant correlation between any genetic factor in black test subjects and low academic achievement. In fact, nobody’s even successfully established any genetic basis for “blackness” itself. “Black” people are very genetically diverse, and no one “black” person is necessarily more closely related genetically to a randomly chosen other “black” person than to some “white” person. You can’t test epidemiologically for the effect of a factor that you haven’t even shown is reliably present in the cohort that you’re testing. > [@brazil84](#): > > Kimstu seems to adhere to the egalitarian hypothesis. As a default hypothesis, yes. As I noted eight posts back or thereabouts, I have no particular objection to the idea that intelligence might be linked to genetic factors, or even that those genetic factors might correlate in some as-yet-unexplained way with superficial racial/ethnic categories. So if one or both of those ideas turn out to be actually true, I won’t object to changing my mind about them. But I definitely object to being told that I ought to change my mind about them based on weak data, sloppy reasoning, and over-eager inferences that, as **Belowjob** notes, are riddled with massive flaws. Trying to insinuate that my objections to such shoddy science are due to liberal dogmatism is simply an attempt to weasel out of your obligations to support your claims adequately. I still haven’t seen even **one** of this thread’s condescending pontificators, wagging their heads philosophically about the need for reasonable, critical-thinking people to calmly accept regrettable facts, produce even **one** cite providing any meaningful evidence for their claims. All you do is keep trying to change the subject by whining that even if you **did** have any good evidence, I’d be too prejudiced to accept it. This ploy is not growing any more convincing with repetition. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2008, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-nature-nurture-issue-been-definitely-settled-in-favor-of-nature/467152/92 "2008-10-12T02:17:32Z")
> [@The Flying Dutchman](#): > > Well have you heard of the microchephalin gene ? A particular variant of this gene which controls brain size arose 37,000 years ago, outside of sub Saharan Africa, and presumably due to its superiority has rapidly spread to 70% of the human population. naturally, its not as prevalent amonst sub Saharan Africans. Yes, we heard about it back in post #43 of this thread: > [@Belowjob2.0](#): > > Derbyshire and the Gene Expression guys believe that scientists are on the cusp of discovering the racial-genetic basis for IQ, proof once and for all that people of African ancestry are inherently genetically inferior. This has become something bordering on an article of faith for them, a kind of Holy Grail. > > They were thrilled when geneticist Bruce Lahn found a gene which influenced brain size. There was a great deal of speculation about the political and social consequences when it would be proven that black Africans were largely missing the gene, and Eurasians had it in abundance. > > It wasn’t proven. It turned out that the recently Stone Aged New Guineans had the gene in abundance, whereas the Han Chinese were largely missing it. The GNXP guys held out hope for a while that this was the proof they wanted, but a lot of neutral observers just laughed. “The big brain gene makes cannibals really smart!” Now Jared Diamond has written that the New Guinea highlanders were the smartest people he’d ever met, but the GNXP guys see Diamond as their arch enemy. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2008, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-nature-nurture-issue-been-definitely-settled-in-favor-of-nature/467152/93 "2008-10-12T02:22:43Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > This challenge is still irrelevant to the claim you’re trying to make in favor of genetic determinism as the cause of black/white test score differentials. Actually, that’s not the claim I made. But anyway, I don’t see why my challenge is irrelevant. I have claimed that your standard of evidence is ridiculously, absurdly high. So high that – by your standard – there is no epidemilogical evidence that anything causes anything. Do you agree with this claim? Simple yes or no question. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2008, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-nature-nurture-issue-been-definitely-settled-in-favor-of-nature/467152/94 "2008-10-12T02:26:50Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Do you agree with this claim? Simple yes or no question. No. The trouble is not that my standard of evidence is ridiculously, absurdly high, but that yours is ridiculously, absurdly low. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2008, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-nature-nurture-issue-been-definitely-settled-in-favor-of-nature/467152/95 "2008-10-12T02:57:32Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > No. Ok, so then you believe that under your standard of evidence, there DOES exist epidemological evidence that something causes something else. Please give me an example. Just one example. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2008, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-nature-nurture-issue-been-definitely-settled-in-favor-of-nature/467152/96 "2008-10-12T03:06:59Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Ok, so then you believe that under your standard of evidence, there DOES exist epidemological evidence that something causes something else. > > Please give me an example. Just one example. Sure, in fact, I’ll give you two. I believe (1) that epidemiological evidence indicates that cigarette smoking causes cancer, and (2) that epidemiological evidence indicates that some unspecified factor linked with being racially “black” causes increased risk of low academic performance. Neither of those positions is in any way inconsistent with my concurrent position that there exists at present no epidemiological evidence that indicates that some unspecified **GENETIC** factor linked with being racially “black” causes increased risk of low academic performance. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2008, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-nature-nurture-issue-been-definitely-settled-in-favor-of-nature/467152/97 "2008-10-12T03:11:54Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Sure, in fact, I’ll give you two. I believe (1) that epidemiological evidence indicates that cigarette smoking causes cancer, What evidence? Can you give me a link to the example please? Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![Belowjob2.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Belowjob2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Belowjob2.0)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2008, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-nature-nurture-issue-been-definitely-settled-in-favor-of-nature/467152/98 "2008-10-12T03:12:28Z")
> [@](#): > > Well have you heard of the microchephalin gene ? A particular variant of this gene which controls brain size arose 37,000 years ago, outside of sub Saharan Africa, and presumably due to its superiority has rapidly spread to 70% of the human population. naturally, its not as prevalent amonst sub Saharan Africans. I can’t access the papers now, apparently. But the results of Lahn’s research, initial and follow up were as stated. Near hundred per cent frequency for Native Americans. Very high frequency for New Guinea highlanders, low frequency for Chinese, Japanese and other East Asians. So if the presence of the gene predisposes populations to higher intelligence, and it’s absence to lower intelligence, then we’ve got to change our definition of intelligence. [The IQ Genes That Weren’t.](http://foreigndispatches.typepad.com/dispatches/2006/12/the_iq_genes_th.html#more) > [@](#): > > Some mutations in microcephalin and ASPM lead to microcephaly, or very small brains, so Lahn had hypothesized that the variants might influence brain growth in normal people. But that idea was challenged last May by neuroscientist Roger Woods of the University of California, Los Angeles. Woods’s team found no correlation between brain volume and the variants in 120 normal subjects, as reported in Human Molecular Genetics. No link between intelligence and head size. [http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200608/s1704016.htm](http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200608/s1704016.htm) [Why the GNXP guys are wrong on the basics of population genetics and its relation to IQ.](http://foreigndispatches.typepad.com/dispatches/2005/09/brain_evolution.html) ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2008, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-nature-nurture-issue-been-definitely-settled-in-favor-of-nature/467152/99 "2008-10-12T03:17:04Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Can you give me a link to the example please? Thank you. Sure. [Here](http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0169500204800023) is an article describng such evidence. (Note: if you don’t have ScienceDirect access, you may see just the abstract, but there will be links to the article.) ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2008, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-nature-nurture-issue-been-definitely-settled-in-favor-of-nature/467152/100 "2008-10-12T03:31:43Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Sure. [Here](http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0169500204800023) is an article describng such evidence. (Note: if you don’t have ScienceDirect access, you may see just the abstract, but there will be links to the article.) Didn’t see any links to the article, but I noticed this in the abstract: > [@](#): > > A meta-analysis of over 50 studies on involuntary smoking among never smokers showed a consistent and statistically significant association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer risk. Of course a “statistically significant association” does not establish causation. It is possible that the sort of person who is likely to expose himself or herself regularly to ETS is also more likely to lead an unhealthy lifestyle, thus increasing his or her cancer risk. Similarly, since smoking has long been perceived to be harmful to one’s health, it is possible that the sort of person who is likely to smoke cigarettes is also more likely to lead an unhealthy lifestyle, thus increasing his or her cancer risk. There is no indication that these studies controlled for this factor, and in any event, it would be impossible to control for this factor. Thus, by the **Kimstu** standard, none of the studies are evidence that smoking (or exposure to secondhand smoke) causes cancer. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-nature-nurture-issue-been-definitely-settled-in-favor-of-nature/467152.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-nature-nurture-issue-been-definitely-settled-in-favor-of-nature/467152.md?page=6)